MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125291729 · doi:10.1139/t00-061

Parameter determination for nonlinear stress criteria using a simple regression tool

2000· article· en· W2125291729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Li, Michel Gamache, Michel Aubertin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemNonlinear regressionSimple (philosophy)Applied mathematicsStress (linguistics)Regression analysisSoftwareComputer scienceRegressionResidualMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In geotechnique, laboratory test results are often employed to estimate the parameter values required for the application of criteria commonly used to define specific stress states such as yielding, failure, and residual strength. Many of these criteria rely on a nonlinear formulation relating the different stress tensor components (or the corresponding invariants). There are many regression techniques that can be selected to obtain corresponding parameters based on experimental results. Some of these can be fairly complex but, considering the intrinsic variability of the available data on geomaterials, relatively simple methods are usually deemed sufficient. In that regard, one should favor methods directly available from common software packages. In this paper, the authors present a simple analysis procedure based on Microsoft Excel ® which can be applied to different two- and three-dimensional stress criteria. As an example, the technique is applied to the failure strength of rock samples using two nonlinear criteria.Key words: rock mechanics, failure criterion, curve fitting, regression analyses, parameter determination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207