MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151562823 · doi:10.1139/t00-106

Characterization of Singapore, Bangkok, and Ariake clays

2001· article· en· W2151562823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroyuki Tanaka, Jacques Locat, Satoru Shibuya, Tan Thiam Soon, Dinesh R. Shiwakoti

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Geotechnical engineeringGeologySoil testDirect shear testClay mineralsAnisotropyShear strength (soil)MicrostructureShear (geology)MineralogySoil waterSoil scienceMaterials scienceComposite materialPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A soil investigation was carried out at two sites in Singapore and Bangkok, Southeast Asia, and the results were compared with those from a site in Ariake, Japan. Soil samples at all the sites were retrieved using the Japanese sampling method to nullify the effect of sampling on sample quality. From the laboratory tests, consolidation characteristics and undrained shear strength were measured. In addition to the mechanical tests, X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscope tests were carried out to identify clay minerals and to study their microstructure. Great differences in physical and mechanical properties of these clays were observed, which may be attributed to the difference in their clay mineral components and variation in the sedimentation environment.Key words: site investigation, marine clay, undrained shear strength, anisotropy, consolidation, clay mineral.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations104
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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