Suction Measurements as Indicators of Sample Quality in Soft Clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil samples removed from the ground during sampling possess a suction in their unconfined state. This suction may vary depending on the degree of disturbance induced during the sampling process. The objective of this work is to examine the feasibility of using suction measurements for sample quality assessment. A number of suction measuring techniques are reviewed and examined on samples of varying quality from two well-characterized soft clay sites, Onsøy in Norway and Ballinasloe in Ireland. Most of the techniques tested gave comparable results, although the cell pressure loading method provided the most variable measurements. The Japanese and University of Massachusetts Amherst suction probe techniques provide relatively quick and consistent suction measurements, requiring less than half an hour to stabilize. In terms of sample quality the Sherbrooke block samples consistently exhibit higher suctions than the 76 mm, 54 mm, and continuous soil samplers for the Onsøy test site. Suctions measured on the Japanese 75 mm samples are similar to those measured on the block samples. The 5° displacement sampler provides the highest suctions on the Ballinasloe samples. It is observed that the quality of samples indicated by suction measurements is similar to that inferred from the normalized change in void ratio (Δe/e0) criterion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".