MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078906785 · doi:10.1139/t09-035

Artificial neural network (ANN) models for determining hydraulic conductivity of compacted fine-grained soils

2009· article· en· W2078906785 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yusuf Erzin, Suchit D. Gumaste, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Devendra Narain Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOedometer testHydraulic conductivityArtificial neural networkSoil waterGeotechnical engineeringMean squared errorWater contentSoil scienceCentrifugeCoefficient of determinationEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study deals with development of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and multiple regression analysis (MRA) models for determining hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained soils. To achieve this, conventional falling-head tests, oedometer falling-head tests, and centrifuge tests were conducted on silty sand and marine clays compacted at different dry densities and moisture contents. Further, results obtained from ANN and MRA models were compared vis-à-vis experimental results. The performance indices such as the coefficient of determination, root mean square error, mean absolute error, and variance were used to assess the performance of these models. The ANN models exhibit higher prediction performance than the MRA models based on their performance indices. It has been demonstrated that the ANN models developed in the study can be employed for determining hydraulic conductivity of compacted fine-grained soils quite efficiently.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations77
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207