MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116895752 · doi:10.1139/t00-015

An equation to represent grain-size distribution

2000· article· en· W2116895752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. D. Fredlund, D. G. Fredlund, Gordon Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterSieve analysisSiltMathematicsParticle-size distributionSieve (category theory)Grain sizeAtterberg limitsDistribution (mathematics)Representation (politics)Distribution functionStatisticsMathematical analysisSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyParticle sizePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grain-size distribution is commonly used for soil classification; however, there is also potential to use the grain-size distribution as a basis for estimating soil behaviour. For example, much emphasis has recently been placed on the estimation of the soil-water characteristic curve. Many methods proposed in the literature use the grain-size distribution as a starting point to estimate the soil-water characteristic curve. Two mathematical forms are presented to represent grain-size distribution curves, namely, a unimodal form and a bimodal form. The proposed equations provide methods for accurately representing uniform, well-graded soils, and gap-graded soils. The five-parameter unimodal equation provides a closer fit than previous two-parameter, log-normal equations used to fit uniform and well-graded soils. The unimodal equation also improves representation of the silt- and clay-sized portions of the grain-size distribution curve.Key words: grain-size distribution, sieve analysis, hydrometer analysis, soil classification, probability density function.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations199
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207