MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100296257 · doi:10.1139/t04-057

Empirical correlations of compression index for marine clay from regression analysis

2004· article· en· W2100296257 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gil Lim Yoon, Byung Tak Kim, Sang Soo Jeon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Void ratioAtterberg limitsGeotechnical engineeringRegression analysisLinear regressionIndex (typography)Compression (physics)Soil scienceGeologySettlement (finance)Simple linear regressionStatisticsRegressionEnvironmental scienceMathematicsWater contentComputer scienceMaterials scienceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single and multiple regression models to estimate the compression index of marine clay in coastal areas in Korea were investigated based on soil property data from more than 1200 consolidation tests on undisturbed samples. Site-specific empirical correlations were proposed to estimate the compression index in terms of both single and multiple soil properties. The proposed regression equations were then compared with the existing empirical equations. It was found that the compression index predicted by a simple linear regression model involving the natural water content, natural void ratio, and liquid limit can reasonably evaluate the real soil compression index. These regression equations may allow a preliminary estimation of the ground settlement for marine clay. It was also recognized that the applications of empirical equations suggested in previous studies result in large uncertainties in estimating the compression index of marine clayey soil in the coastal zone in Korea.Key words: settlement, compression index, regression, statistical analysis, consolidation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations105
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207