MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Some Design Considerations for Embankments on Rate Sensitive Soils

2002· article· en· W2076883071 on OpenAlexafffund
Allen Lunzhu Li, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterFoundation (evidence)LeveeStiffnessShallow foundationStrain rateCreepEnvironmental scienceGeologyMaterials scienceSoil scienceEngineeringBearing capacityStructural engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both the short-term and long-term behavior of reinforced embankments constructed on rate sensitive foundation soils is investigated. Factors such as the rate sensitive properties of the foundation soil, reinforcement stiffness, construction rates, and different foundation soil profiles are considered. The strain rate at which the foundation soils deform during and after embankment construction is examined. For embankments on these soils the analysis indicates that the critical stage with respect to stability occurs during a period of creep and stress relaxation in the foundation soils after construction. The strain rate corresponding to this critical stage controls the operational shear strength of rate sensitive foundation soils and this strain rate falls into a relatively small range of values for the wide range of conditions examined. A technique that allows a conventional undrained limit equilibrium analysis to be modified to allow the design of reinforced embankments over rate sensitive foundation soils is proposed based on the critical stage concept.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207