MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104954333 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0308

Modified expression for the failure criterion of bucket foundations subjected to combined loading

2013· article· en· W2104954333 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K.A. Larsen, Lars Bo Ibsen, Amin Barari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbedmentGeotechnical engineeringExpression (computer science)Function (biology)Moment (physics)Ultimate tensile strengthScale (ratio)Load factorStructural engineeringBearing capacityGeologyMathematicsEngineeringComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, various loading tests with small- and large-scale bucket foundations were performed on buckets of varying sizes, embedment ratios, and load paths with saturated dense Aalborg University Sand No. 1 at the geotechnical laboratory of Aalborg University. In the present study, the capacity and behavior of bucket foundations subjected to combined loads were investigated on the basis of the results of these experimental studies. Although previous authors had proposed a linear relationship between the moment capacity and the vertical load, this relationship did not fit the observed capacities in the present study. Therefore, a modified expression is proposed to describe the combined capacity as a function of the tensile capacity and the inclination factor.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207