MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114136877 · doi:10.1139/t05-031

On the evaluation of undrained shear strength and preconsolidation pressure from common field tests in clay

2005· article· en· W2114136877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rolf Larsson, Helen Åhnberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDilatometerPenetration testGeologyShear strength (soil)Pore water pressureCone penetration testMaterials scienceSoil waterComposite materialSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The undrained shear strength is a key parameter in the estimation of the stability of natural slopes and man-made constructions in soft clay. It is therefore important to develop relevant methods to evaluate the operative strength. Results from an investigation regarding the effect of excavations at slope crests to increase the stability of clay slopes are presented. This study has provided an opportunity to study the effect of overconsolidation on the evaluated parameters from common in situ tests in homogeneous and truly overconsolidated clays. Certain inconsistencies in the commonly used methods of interpretation of field vane tests, cone penetration tests, and dilatometer tests are highlighted, and modified interpretation methods taking the effects of overconsolidation into account are proposed.Key words: clay, overconsolidation, undrained shear strength, cone penetration test, field vane test, dilatometer test.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207