MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139850942 · doi:10.1139/t00-107

The equivalence of a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining to a continuous ring structure

2001· article· en· W2139850942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K M Lee, Xiao Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShieldStructural engineeringLateral earth pressureStiffnessGeotechnical engineeringInternal forcesEngineeringFlexural rigidityRigidity (electromagnetism)Joint (building)GeometryGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new method of determining the correction factor to approximate a jointed, shield-driven tunnel lining as a continuous ring structure under plane strain conditions. An earth pressure distribution pattern is proposed which is developed based on the long-term behavior of shallow tunnels constructed in soft clays as observed in the field. The "force method" was used to determine the internal forces and displacements of jointed, shield-driven tunnels. Either the vertical or the horizontal displacement of the tunnel lining can be used as a common matching parameter. Factors such as joint stiffness, soil resistance, joint distribution, number of joints, and tunnel geometry can be considered by the proposed method. Simplified design equations for the estimation of equivalence factors are also proposed for the typical tunnel lining geometry of urban subway tunnels. The proposed equivalence method was evaluated by comparing it with the results of laboratory tests.Key words: shield-driven tunnel, jointed segmental lining, effective bending rigidity ratio, equivalence factor, lining internal force, earth pressure distribution.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations202
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207