Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field trials were conducted to evaluate three different permeation grouts in a medium-dense, silty sand outwash deposit. Sodium silicate, microfine powder, and microfine cement based grouts were used. Visual observations from boreholes, a large-diameter shaft, and two inspection drifts through the grouted sand are reported. The sodium silicate grout produced a uniformly grouted material with massive structure. The microfine powder grout did not harden in the ground. The injection of the microfine cement grout resulted in only discrete veins of grouted soil. Laboratory testing of the grouted soil recovered from block samples quantified the strength increase of the sand grouted with sodium silicate. Cross-hole seismic velocity tests conducted through the grout zone prior to construction of the inspection shaft and drifts indicated increased velocities in the grouted soils. The successful trials established the suitability of the sodium silicate grout as a means of ground treatment for temporary support for tunnel excavation.Key words: permeation grouting, soil improvement, sodium silicate, microfine cement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".