MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058912349 · doi:10.1139/t00-025

Fuzzy-based approach for determination of characteristic values of measured geotechnical parameters

2000· article· en· W2058912349 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. O. Nawari, Ruxia Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicReliability (semiconductor)Geotechnical engineeringGeotechnical investigationMathematicsFuzzy setProbability distributionEngineeringStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determination of the nominal (characteristic) values of geotechnical properties plays a crucial role within the limits states design (LSD or LRFD) concepts. The interrelationship between the process of the selection of the nominal value and the safety level is not clearly addressed in most of the new limits states design codes of practice for geotechnical engineering. Estimation of the characteristic values (p% fractile or the mean value) using the stochastic models is often linked up with some assumptions regarding the probability distribution functions. Probability theory has been perceived as a unique methodology to handle uncertainty in these geotechnical parameters despite the fact that some of the uncertainties associated with these geotechnical properties may be nonstochastic in nature. In this paper, the uncertainty connected with measured geotechnical properties is modeled using the fuzzy-reliability techniques. The measured parameters are rendered into fuzzy variables and the nominal values are characterized by fuzziness. The procedure presented is proposed as an alternative or complementary method to the estimate of the nominal values of geomaterials. The approach is illustrated with computational algorithms and a numerical example.Key words: characteristic value, nominal value, fuzzy model, fuzzy variable, resistance factor, probability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207