MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069078919 · doi:10.1139/t07-011

Potential improvements of design parameters by taking block samples of soft marine Norwegian clays

2007· article· en· W2069078919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toralv Berre, Tom Lunne, Knut H. Andersen, Stein Strandvik, Morten Sjursen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPetrobras
KeywordsOedometer testGeotechnical engineeringConsolidation (business)GeologyEngineeringSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undrained triaxial and direct simple shear tests on samples reconsolidated to the in situ effective stresses and oedometer tests have been carried out on standard piston tube and on high quality block samples from 12 deposits of soft Norwegian marine clays. Based on the results of a selected number of these tests, empirical procedures for estimating the effect of sample disturbance have been developed. These procedures can be used to show the potential increase that may be achieved in undrained shear strength and apparent preconsolidation stress by taking high quality block samples. Suggestions are also given regarding corrections for rate of loading and temperature effects; as well, examples are given regarding possible consequences for design if higher strengths are utilized.Key words: soft clays, sample disturbance, consolidation procedures, stress–strain–strength behaviour.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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