MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2074383305 · doi:10.1061/41072(359)58

Foundation Design for Frost Heave

2009· article· en· W2074383305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Widianto, Glenn Heilenman, Jerry Owen, Javier Fente

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrost heavingPermafrostGeotechnical engineeringPileFrost (temperature)Foundation (evidence)Frost weatheringEngineeringCivil engineeringGeologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frost heave is the heaving of the ground surface when frost-susceptible soils, in conjunction with high water table or surface water infiltration, freeze. This paper discusses the foundation design strategy for frost-heave forces in areas with substantial frost depths. Only foundations in seasonal frost areas are discussed. Performance of foundations in permafrost and design of pavement and roads are beyond the scope of this paper. As a real case study, the preliminary study and approach that were implemented for the foundation design in a recent project in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, Canada are presented. After preliminary studies, the project decided to implement three primary approaches for foundation designs: (i) Installation of compressible void forms underneath pile-supported foundations; (ii) Installation of 200mm rigid Styrofoam insulation to limit the depth of frost penetration, underlain by 300mm of non frost-susceptible granular fill material, with either soil supported or pile foundations below; and (iii) The use of screw piles with a bond breaker on the shaft above frost line.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→