MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092331191 · doi:10.1139/t01-046

A note on Rayleigh wave velocity in saturated soils with compressible constituents

2001· article· en· W2092331191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jun Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRayleigh waveCompressibilityMechanicsBiot numberGeotechnical engineeringDissipationRayleigh scatteringWave propagationGeologyClassical mechanicsPhysicsThermodynamicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of Rayleigh waves in a semi-infinite saturated soil medium is reconsidered in this study, with the purpose of clarifying existing confusion and limitations of available studies. By employing Biot's general formulation, which takes into account not only the compressibility of the solid and fluid constituents but also the viscous dissipation due to fluid flow, the secular equation for Rayleigh waves is rigorously derived and the velocity of Rayleigh waves is computed for several typical types of saturated soils. The results show that the velocity of Rayleigh waves in general is independent of frequency in the frequency range actually employed in engineering practice and is only slightly less than the shear wave velocity. The results confirm that current understanding of Rayleigh wave velocity achieved based on the classical theory of elasticity is acceptable and indicate that some results in the literature are incorrect.Key words: Rayleigh wave velocity, saturated soil, porous media, wave propagation, analytical method.

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)0.010
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207