Use of geophysical methods for soil profile evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A geophysical investigation was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of three geophysical methods (electrical resistivity imaging (ERI), seismic refraction (SR), and multiple-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW)) for geotechnical site characterization in swamps and environmentally sensitive wetland areas. The geophysical test results were verified against the results from borehole and cone penetrometer test logs. The ERI results were best for determining the depth to the glacial till. However, the resolution of the ERI survey was not sufficient to accurately predict the upper lithologies. The electrode spacing (4 m) was instead selected to reliably predict the depth to the till, which in this case varied between 4.6 and 10.7 m. The SR results overestimated the depth to the till because of the presence of a stiffness reversal. The MASW results predicted the depth to the refusal till layer less accurately than the ERI method. However, this method was able to detect the three distinct layers above the till, even though the layer thicknesses were consistently underestimated. The complementary use of geophysical techniques was a successful approach in determining the main soil units and the depth to the competent layer (till) at the site. These methods can be used as a basis for further development to optimize a procedure to reduce the number of boreholes required for conventional site investigations in areas that are environmentally sensitive or where access is restricted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".