MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164266181 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0057

Characterization of an alluvial silt and clay deposit for monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic behavior

2014· article· en· W2164266181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karina R. Dahl, Jason T. DeJong, Ross W. Boulanger, Robert Pyke, Douglas Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Water Resources
KeywordsSiltGeotechnical engineeringConsolidation (business)GeologyAlluviumVoid ratioPore water pressureAtterberg limitsSoil waterPlasticitySoil testWater contentSoil scienceGeomorphologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a detailed characterization of the monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic behavior of two strata within a recent Holocene alluvial deposit of silty sand, sandy silt, silt, and clay. Stratum A is composed predominantly of very soft clay and very loose silt with plasticity indices ranging from 5 to 27, whereas stratum B is composed predominantly of very loose silty sand and sandy silt with plasticity indices ranging from 0 to 10. Characterization included in situ testing, undisturbed soil sampling and laboratory testing, and a field surcharge test section. Consolidation tests and monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic direct simple shear tests were used to evaluate the effects of varying the consolidation stress, consolidation stress history, and initial static shear stress ratio. The field and laboratory test data show distinct differences in behavior between the two soil strata, which can be related to their different index test characteristics. These results are compared with their respective behaviors predicted using common engineering correlations. The field and laboratory test data summarized herein contribute to the database and understanding of the monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic behaviors of low-plasticity fine-grained soils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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