MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142412766 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0216

Isotropic yielding of unsaturated cemented silty sand

2013· article· en· W2142412766 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcos Arroyo, Miguel F. Amaral, Enrique Romero, António Viana da Fonseca

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementation (geology)Geotechnical engineeringCompactionVoid ratioWater contentCementIsotropySuctionSoil waterHardening (computing)Water retentionMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialSoil scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsaturated cemented soils are frequent both as designed materials and as naturally occurring layers. Both desiccation and cementation act separately as hardening mechanisms, but it is not clear how exactly their effects combine. Do they enhance one another? Are they mutually reinforcing? This study presents results from an experimental campaign aimed at answering these questions. Five different mixtures of soil (a granite saprolite) and cement (with cement contents in the range 0% to 7% on a dry weight basis) are tested in isotropic compression at four different water content levels. Initial void ratio is also controlled, using two initial compaction densities. Loading is performed at constant water content and suction is inferred from a set of water retention curves obtained from parallel psychrometric and pore-size distribution measurements. The range of yield stresses explored in this study covers almost two orders of magnitude and extends up to 7 MPa at suction values of up to 14 MPa. Both desiccation and cementation increase yield stress, but their effects are less marked when both act together, and therefore they are not mutually reinforcing.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207