MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064826069 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0134

Permeability of lime- and cement-treated clayey soils

2015· article· en· W2064826069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nguyen Duy Quang, Jin Chun Chai

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementation (geology)LimeCementOedometer testMercury intrusion porosimetrySoil waterPozzolanic reactionPorosimetryMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)Scanning electron microscopePozzolanComposite materialMetallurgyPorosityGeologyChemistrySoil sciencePorous mediumPortland cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The permeability (k) of lime- and cement-treated clayey soils was investigated in the laboratory by flexible-wall permeability tests and oedometer tests. Test results indicate that for the cement-treated soils (with up to 8% cement content by dry weight), the value of k is almost equal to that of untreated soils under identical void ratio (e) conditions, and the k value decreases significantly when the cement content is higher than 8%. For lime-treated soils, the threshold lime content is about 4%. Investigation of the soil microstructure using the mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) test and scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging indicates that when the cementation products formed by the pozzolanic reaction fill mainly the intra-aggregate pores, the value of k is comparable for the treated and untreated samples. When the cementation products begin to fill the interaggregate pores, the value of k of the treated sample becomes smaller than that of the untreated soil sample under the identical e value condition. An indication that the cementation products have filled the interaggregate pores is the rapid increase in strength of the treated soil.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations105
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207