MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098391759 · doi:10.1139/t01-063

Earth pressures on unyielding retaining walls of narrow backfill width

2001· article· en· W2098391759 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
W. Andy Take, Arun J. Valsangkar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCentrifugeLateral earth pressureGeotechnical engineeringRetaining wallGeologyOverburden pressureHysteresisNonlinear systemDiaphragm (acoustics)MechanicsStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arching theory predicts a significant reduction in earth pressures behind retaining walls of narrow backfill width. An extensive series of centrifuge tests has been performed to evaluate the use of flexible subminiature pressure cells in the centrifuge environment and their subsequent use to measure lateral earth pressures behind retaining walls of narrow backfill width. Although the flexible earth pressure cells exhibit hysteresis and nonlinear calibration behaviour, the extensive calibration studies indicate that stiff diaphragm type earth pressure cells may be used with replicate models to measure earth pressures. Measurements of lateral pressures acting on the unyielding model retaining walls show good agreement with Janssen's arching theory. Tests on backfills bounded by vertical planes of dissimilar frictional characteristics indicate arching theory with an average interface friction angle provides a reasonable estimate of lateral earth pressures.Key words: fascia retaining walls, silos, earth pressures, pressure cells, centrifuge modelling.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations165
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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