A review of 41 legal cases involving geotechnical practice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores factors that contribute to claims of changed soil conditions in infrastructure and building projects through a limited review of Canadian legal cases. Forty-one cases, relating to geotechnical problems covering a period of 25 years (1982–2006), were studied. The information obtained was categorized according to the causes for geotechnical claims. The most frequent causes of geotechnical disputes were found to be different soil conditions and recommendations than expected from those given in the geotechnical report, inaccuracies in the design plans and specifications, and the owner’s failure to disclose important information. The paper also discusses the special requirements for preparing geotechnical information for construction and suggests precautionary measures to reduce the number of disputes or to arrive at an equitable resolution. These measures require more proactive planning and may require additional funds before the bidding stage to perform a more detailed soil investigation, keep communication clear among all participants, and make a greater effort to provide accurate designs and specifications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".