MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150337807 · doi:10.1139/t05-035

Infiltration into an embankment reinforced by nonwoven geotextiles

2005· article· en· W2150337807 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
T. Iryo, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotextileGeosyntheticsGeotechnical engineeringLeveeDrainageInfiltration (HVAC)Pore water pressureMaterials scienceCloggingEnvironmental scienceGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydraulic behaviour of permeable geosynthetics within unsaturated embankments subjected to infiltration is examined using the finite element method. The van Genuchten – Mualem model is employed to evaluate unsaturated hydraulic characteristics for both the soil and nonwoven geotextile. Using pore-water pressures obtained from the finite element analysis, stability analyses are conducted for the embankments, and the contribution of the nonwoven geo textile to stability is evaluated with reference to the observed performance of instrumented embankments. A numerical study is also conducted to examine the effect of geotextile configuration on the performance of reinforced embankments subject to infiltration. This study shows that nonwoven geotextiles may retard water flow in situations where the pore pressure is negative, whereas they act as a drainage material in situations where pore pressures are positive. It is also shown that the contribution of the nonwoven geotextile to the stability of the embankment as a drainage material is much less substantial than its role as a reinforcing material.Key words: nonwoven geotextile, drainage, unsaturated, embankment, stability.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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