MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126170267 · doi:10.1139/t04-014

The 2002 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: The role of soilpile interaction in foundation engineering

2004· article· en· W2126170267 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
M. Hesham El Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileFoundation (evidence)EngineeringGeotechnical engineeringCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringForensic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil–pile interaction (SPI) plays an important role in the analysis and design of foundations and structures. Geotechnical engineers have recognized this role, and many studies have focused on several aspects of the topic in the past four decades. As the third millennium begins, geotechnical engineers are challenged to provide more reliable and efficient foundation solutions to support larger, heavier, and more complicated structures. SPI must be thoroughly understood to properly address the issues that arise when designing foundations to meet these challenges. This presentation investigates some of the important features of SPI as they relate to some innovative applications in foundation engineering. Specific problems examined here include design of tapered piles where understanding SPI and interface conditions is utilized to develop efficient design procedures; construction of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) and thin-walled pipe piles using an innovative device that exploits the understanding of aspects of SPI during driving for efficient installation; and Statnamic pile load testing where analysis of SPI is used to establish the characteristics of the pile static behaviour from the dynamic loading event.Key words: tapered, piles, driving, fibre-reinforced polymer, Statnamic, load testing.

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)0.001
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 score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207