Microbial strengthening of loose sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test whether the addition of Flavobacterium johnsoniae could increase the strength of saturated Ottawa 30 sand. METHODS AND RESULTS: A box model was built that simulates groundwater-like flow through a main sand compartment. Strength tests were performed at seven locations and at two depths, 10.8 and 20.3 cm below the top of the tank, using a vane shear device before and after the addition of bacteria. After the addition of Fl. johnsoniae, sand samples were obtained from multiple sampling ports on the vertical sides of the box model. The presence of a bacterial biofilm was confirmed by staining these sand samples with SYTO-9 and Alexa Fluor 633 and viewing with a confocal microscope. The average shear strength increases after the addition of Fl. johnsoniae were 15.2-87.5%, depending on the experimental conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Flavobacterium johnsoniae caused a statistically significant increase in the strength of saturated Ottawa 30 sand. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Biofilm-forming bacteria can increase the shear strength of saturated sand. The addition of biofilm-forming bacteria to a building site may be an alternate method to mitigate the effects of liquefaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".