Assessment of the range of variation of<i>N</i><sub><i>γ</i></sub>from 60 estimation methods for footings on sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The range of variation of the bearing capacity factor, Nγ, was assessed using 60 estimation methods for rough footings on sand subjected to static vertical loading. The influence on the Nγvalues of the use of correlations for the estimation of the friction angle, [Formula: see text], derived from in situ tests was also assessed. The analysis shows a marked dependency on the methods used to determine Nγ, showing differences for the same [Formula: see text] values of up to 267% between estimated values. Uncertainty in the estimation of [Formula: see text], due to the use of correlations with in situ tests, leads to a range of variation for Nγhigher than that seen using the 60 estimation methods. Finally, given the regular use of the in situ standard penetration test (SPT) on sands, and based on a series of analyses using finite elements, a simplified method in terms of the SPT N-values is proposed for estimation of Nγin footings on sands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".