MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093606147 · doi:10.1139/t08-080

Effect of depositional method on the microstructure of silty sand

2008· article· en· W2093606147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jerry A. Yamamuro, Fletcher M. Wood, Poul V. Lade

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSiltMicrostructureSedimentary depositional environmentGrain sizeGeotechnical engineeringScanning electron microscopeSedimentationGeologyDeposition (geology)MineralogyMaterials scienceComposite materialSedimentGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results from a laboratory experimental study on silty sand are presented. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to investigate the effect of depositional method and silt content on the grain contact structure of silty sand. Triaxial specimens containing Nevada sand with various quantities of nonplastic silt were isotropically consolidated to 25 kPa and then preserved through epoxy impregnation. Specimens were formed using both dry funnel deposition and water sedimentation. A procedure was developed that allowed the microstructure to be quantified in terms of potentially stable and unstable grain contacts. As silt content increased, the percentage of stable grain contacts decreased. Specimens formed by dry funnel deposition contained a higher percentage of potentially unstable grain contacts than those reconstituted by water sedimentation, possibly reflecting a more compressible particle structure. This effect became more pronounced as silt content increased. A description of the specimen preservation technique as well as the methodology used to both prepare and analyze SEM specimens for grain contact analysis are presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations93
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207