MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation of Tunnel-Soil-Pile Interaction in Cohesive Soils

2009· article· en· W2140033118 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringBedrockExcavationGeologyEngineeringSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underground tunnels are considered to be a vital infrastructure component in most cities around the world. Careful planning is always necessary to ensure minimum impact on nearby surface and subsurface structures. This study describes the experimental investigation carried out to examine the effect of existing piles installed in cohesive soil and extended to bedrock on the circumferential stresses developing in a newly constructed tunnel supported by a flexible lining system. A small scale testing facility was designed and built to simulate the process of tunnel excavation and lining installation in the close vicinity of preinstalled model piles. Lining stresses were measured for different separation distances between the lining and the existing piles Consistent decrease in the lining load was observed when the piles are located within a distance of one tunnel diameter from the tunnel. The results presented in this study indicated that measuring the lining response near existing pile foundations may be used to evaluate the extent of the interaction between the lining and the surrounding piles.

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.

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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.166 · 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