MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146798989 · doi:10.1139/t08-052

Quantification of the effects of structure on the compression of a stiff clay

2008· article· en· W2146798989 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Gasparre, M. R. Coop

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsOedometer testCompression (physics)Geotechnical engineeringSoil structureSoil waterMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed analysis was made of the compression behaviour of London Clay from oedometer tests, investigating the effects of the clay structure through comparisons between the behaviour of the intact soil and that of the same soil in a reconstituted state. The normalizing parameters commonly used in the literature to analyze the effects of structure on the compression behaviour of clays were found not to represent accurately the real behaviour of those clays that have a gradual yield in compression and require very high stresses to reach and cross the intrinsic compression line. For these soils, it is often difficult to identify a clear yield stress and the effects arising from the structure of the intact material may be concealed by the effects arising from the sample depth and the curvature of the intrinsic compression line at high stresses. A new normalizing parameter is introduced that refers the compression of the natural soil to the intrinsic swelling behaviour and the intrinsic compression line of the material. This was found to better represent the enhanced resistance of the intact material in compression while not requiring numerous loading and unloading stages in the oedometer tests as required by other methods.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations64
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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