Similarity of soil variability in centrifuge models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The soil specimen in a centrifuge model is subject to spatial variability depending on the method of sample preparation and the stress field induced by the centrifugal acceleration, even though it is intended to be uniformly prepared. In contrast to extensive measurements for studying the variability of in situ soil properties, soil variability in centrifuge models, especially that which is based on data at very close sampling distances, is less understood. In this paper, the variability of soil density in two centrifuge models is presented. Random field theory is adopted to characterize the spatial soil variability in the two centrifuge models. The importance of taking spatial variability parameters as a model similarity requirement in centrifuge model design is illustrated and discussed. It is demonstrated that, although centrifuge models of different sizes can be designed to simulate the same prototype, the prototypes these models actually represent are not identical in terms of soil spatial variability. To achieve similarity in spatial variability between a centrifuge model and its prototype, one may need to control either the point coefficient of variation or the scale of fluctuation of the model soil so that the coefficients of variation of the spatially averaged soil property in the model and the prototype are the same.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".