MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088280597 · doi:10.1520/gtj102689

Assessment of the Modified CUAPS Apparatus to Estimate In Situ Properties of Cemented Paste Backfill

2010· article· en· W2088280597 on OpenAlexaff
Erol Yilmaz, Tikou Belem, Mostafa Benzaazoua, Bruno Bussière

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Geotechnical engineeringCuring (chemistry)Materials sciencePermeability (electromagnetism)Hydraulic conductivityIn situComposite materialPore water pressureEngineeringGeologySoil waterSoil scienceChemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper evaluates some improvements in the design of a laboratory apparatus called curing under applied pressure system (CUAPS) designed to estimate in situ properties of cemented paste backfill (CPB). This apparatus is effective in conducting the following tests on samples during curing: (i) One-dimensional consolidation test with or without pore water pressure (PWP) measurement, (ii) PWP dissipation test, (iii) saturated hydraulic conductivity (permeability) test, and (iv) curing under constant or variable vertical pressure. Unconfined compression tests can be also performed on consolidated CPB samples after each of these tests. The modified CUAPS apparatus is assessed in this paper. Preliminary results are promising and validate the functionality of the CUAPS apparatus, which will contribute to the knowledge on consolidation behaviour of in situ CPB material.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations80
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207