MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092660459 · doi:10.1680/gein.2012.19.1.1

Choice of allowable long-term strains for reinforced embankments on a rate-sensitive foundation

2012· article· en· W2092660459 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Taechakumthorn, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosynthetics International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeosyntheticsGeotechnical engineeringLeveeReinforcementSettlement (finance)Foundation (evidence)Finite element methodTerm (time)ViscoelasticityStructural engineeringEngineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceGeographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The time-dependent behavior of reinforced embankments constructed over rate-sensitive soils is examined for different maximum allowable long-term reinforcement strains using finite element analysis. The long-term service height, lateral toe spreading, maximum differential settlement and maximum settlement of reinforced embankments are examined. The viscoelastic nature of geosynthetic reinforcement is considered. Various factors affecting the performance of reinforced embankments on rate-sensitive soil are investigated: soil viscosity, reinforcement type and construction rate. Based on a series of finite element analyses, the ideal allowable long-term reinforcement strains that control the embankment deformations to modest levels while maximizing the long-term service height of reinforced embankments, considering the combined effect of soil and reinforcement viscosity, are suggested.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosynthetics InternationalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207