MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2157779371 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0278

Continuous-interval shear wave velocity profiling by auto-source and seismic piezocone tests

2013· article· en· W2157779371 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Taeseo Ku, Paul W. Mayne, Ethan Cargill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConetec Investigations
FundersAgence Nationale pour le Développement de la Recherche UniversitaireGeorgia Institute of Technology
KeywordsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testShear (geology)SeismologyPileWaveletWave velocityCone penetration testPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new exploratory procedure for collecting continuous shear wave velocity measurements via cone penetration testing using a special autoseis source is presented whereby wavelets can be generated and recorded every 1 to 10 s. The continuous-interval seismic piezocone test (CiSCPTu) offers a fast, productive, and reliable means to expedite the collection of downhole shear wave velocity profiles, as well as additional readings on cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, and penetration porewater pressures with depth. A site in Windsor, Virginia, is utilized for illustrating the collection of data, calibration, and post-processing issues arising from large numbers of wavelets that require filtering, windowing, and selection in both time and frequency domain analyses. At the test site, the geology consists of shallow Holocene deposits of clays and sands to 8 m that are underlain by much stiffer calcareous sandy marine clay soils of Miocene age, which extend beyond the termination depths of the soundings at 30 m.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicSeismic Waves and Analysis→French-language works237,207→