MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065853489 · doi:10.1520/gtj11848

Canadian Liquefaction Experiment (CANLEX): Blast-Induced Ground Motion and Pore Pressure Experiments

2005· article· en· W2065853489 on OpenAlexaffabout
EMA Al-Qasimi, WA Charlie, D J Woeller

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsShaughnessy Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionPore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringSoil liquefactionGround motionGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As part of the Canadian Liquefaction Experiment (CANLEX), single and multiple explosive charges were detonated in a level deposit of loose, saturated, sand-size mine tailings. Empirical equations were developed from pore pressure and ground motion recorded at several locations. A condition of zero effective stress was induced at a depth of 6 m when peak particle velocity exceeded 0.65 m/s for single detonations and 0.13 m/s for twelve detonations having millisecond delays. Little or no excess pore pressure was induced from single or multiple detonations when peak particle velocity or peak compressive strain was less than 0.01 m/s or 0.001 %, respectively. The blasting experiments were conducted and analyzed to determine blast-induced ground motion and pore pressure response in a level deposit and to determine the possibility of using explosives to trigger flow-liquefaction in tailings located below an embankment, while keeping peak particle velocities within limits set by Syncrude Canada, Ltd.

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)0.001
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 score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207