MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162893472 · doi:10.1139/t02-122

A limit equilibrium solution for bearing capacity of strip foundations on sand

2003· article· en· W2162893472 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vincenzo Silvestri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBearing capacityDilatantGeotechnical engineeringFriction angleLimit (mathematics)Bearing (navigation)Foundation (evidence)Range (aeronautics)GeologyEngineeringMathematicsMechanicsMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematical analysisComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A limit equilibrium analysis is used in this paper to obtain the bearing capacity of a strip foundation on sand. Bearing capacity factors Nq and Nγ are determined for a practical range of friction angles, using a minimization procedure. The dilatancy angle Ψ of the sand coupled with the apparent friction angle ϕ allows the use of a modified friction angle ϕ*, which is in turn employed in the analysis. Comparisons with previous published data indicate that the proposed analysis gives adequate results. It is also shown that consideration of a dilatancy angle Ψ < ϕ leads to a bearing capacity value that is lower than that obtained for the case with Ψ = ϕ.Key words: limit equilibrium, bearing capacity, sand, dilatancy, strip footing, Nq and Nγ factors.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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