Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recently developed in situ testing method, called the sharp cone test, which is in fact a continuous and automated version of the pressuremeter test, consists of pushing a low-angle truncated cone into a smaller diameter prebored or self-bored pilot hole. As the cone descends, it causes a continuous enlargement of the pilot hole, which, with proper instrumentation, can be translated into a relationship between radial pressure and radial (or shear) strain, similar to the expansion curve of a pressuremeter test. The present paper describes the use in the field of two new versions of this instrument: the first one with 2° taper, having on its lateral surface four total pressure transducers and a pore pressure transducer; and the second one with two successive taper angles of 1° and 2°, having five total pressure transducers installed at various distances from the tip. The latter probe was found to be capable of continuously furnishing five points on a pressure-expansion curve, which can be translated into a stressstrain relationship by using conventional pressuremeter data-processing procedures. The first probe, in turn, was used for simultaneously observing the decrease with time of both total lateral pressure and pore pressure during strain-holding periods of the test. In 2002, the two newly designed instruments were tested in a thick layer of saturated clay at a site near Montréal. A comparison of the results with those obtained at the same site by some other types of tests is very encouraging.Key words: field tests, clay, sharp cone, pressuremeter, short term, long term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".