MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128301714 · doi:10.1139/t09-093

A critical reappraisal of “preconsolidation pressure” interpretations using the oedometer test

2010· article· en· W2128301714 on OpenAlexaffvenue
S. J. Boone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsOedometer testGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)CompressibilityOverburden pressureGeologyLateral earth pressureInterpretation (philosophy)Stress (linguistics)EngineeringSoil waterSoil scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 70 years, a number of methods have been proposed for the interpretation of the characteristic vertical effective yield stress, or “preconsolidation pressure,” of compressible soils as defined using the standard oedometer test. The concept of the “preconsolidation pressure” has been extraordinarily useful in geotechnical engineering for analysing and predicting settlement behaviour and for normalizing other engineering parameters for comparative purposes. Defining this characteristic stress, however, is often problematic and relies heavily on graphical techniques that are subject to some uncertainty, particularly when using semi-log plots for this purpose. This paper illustrates fundamental difficulties with the interpretation of oedometer test and presents an alternative technique for defining unambiguous values of the vertical effective yield stress.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations56
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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