MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071057685 · doi:10.1139/t00-005

Analysis of self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM) and Marchetti dilatometer (DMT) tests in granite saprolites

2000· article· en· W2071057685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
‪Fernando Schnaid, J. A. R. Ortigão, F. M. Mántaras, Renato Pinto da Cunha, I.D. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilatometerGeotechnical engineeringGeologyResidualCohesion (chemistry)Triaxial shear testEngineeringShear (geology)Materials scienceMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the analyses of the results of the site investigation programme carried out at the Kowloon Bay site in Hong Kong. The tests consisted of self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM), Marchetti dilatometer (DMT), and laboratory tests carried out in a granite saprolite, which can be described as a lightly cemented sand. The purpose of this research project is to stimulate the development of methods to interpret data obtained from tests in residual soils. In particular, the work aims to evaluate the analyses of the SBPM data through a curve-fitting technique. Both the loading and unloading portions of the SBPM curve were analysed and the results compared with those from other tests. The advantage of this analysis technique is the possibility of constructing a theoretical curve that reproduces a pressuremeter test from which a set of fundamental parameters can be derived, namely the friction angle, cohesion intercept, lateral stress, and shear modulus. The DMT proved to be a reliable tool that yielded good soil parameters at a small fraction of the cost of the other in situ tests.Key words: residual soil, in situ tests, pressuremeter, Marchetti dilatometer.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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