MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062075465 · doi:10.1520/gtj11779

Model Pile Pull-Out Tests Using Polyethylene Sheets to Reduce Downdrag on Cast In Situ Piles

2004· article· en· W2062075465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiao Huey Chow, KS Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPileIn situGeologyPolyethyleneEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceStructural engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Low-density polyethylene sheets (LDPE) were used in this study to investigate its effectiveness in reducing downdrag on cast in situ piles. Eight model pile pull-out tests were conducted using three reinforced concrete circular model piles with different surface conditions (smooth, smooth with necking and bulging, and rough) in combination with three different LDPE sheet arrangements (one-sheet, two-sheet, and three-sheet). The pile was embedded partially in Ottawa sand with a surcharge of 19.3 kPa on sand surface. The test results showed that an arrangement with 3 pieces of 0.25-mm thick LDPE sheet was most effective in reducing side friction up to an average of 89 %. It was also found that the effectiveness of LDPE sheets is independent of the concrete surface roughness. However, the presence of necking and bulging was found to increase the side resistance up to 40 % for the plain pile without LDPE sheets.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207