MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145811095 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0182

Centrifuge experiments on the settlement of circular foundations on clay

2014· article· en· W2145811095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B.T. McMahon, M. D. Bolton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCambridge Trust
KeywordsCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringConsolidation (business)CreepGeologyPore water pressureMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centrifuge experiments were conducted to investigate the mechanisms governing the settlement of shallow circular foundations on clay. Model tests were performed on both soft and firm beds of overconsolidated kaolin clay. Foundation loads were applied as dead-weight and also through pneumatic loading. A Perspex window in the centrifuge package allowed digital images to be captured of a vertical cross section during and after the application of loading. Soil displacements deduced by particle image velocimetry (PIV) allow deformation mechanisms to be presented for undrained penetration, creep, and consolidation caused by transient flow. A technique is presented for discriminating consolidation settlements from the varying rates of short- and long-term creep. The mobilizable strength design (MSD) method is shown to make useful predictions of the undrained penetration using an estimated stress–strain behaviour of the clay with allowances made for anisotropy and rate effects. Subsequent creep and consolidation settlements were then determined using established correlations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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