MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186202859 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0068

Estimating slope of critical state line from cone penetration test — an update

2014· article· en· W2186202859 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradationCone penetration testCompressibilityGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testSoil testPenetration (warfare)MathematicsSoil scienceGeologyStatisticsSoil waterMechanicsPhysicsSubgradeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of density from cone penetration test (CPT) results is challenging, as cone resistance is a function of a number of soil properties, particularly compressibility. While many of the relevant soil properties can be determined from laboratory testing of recovered samples, this process is not feasible when investigating a deposit of soil with significant variations in gradation and (or) properties across depth and lateral extent. To provide a first-order estimate of density from CPT results alone, a number of correlations have been developed to ascertain other soil properties, particularly compressibility, from CPT data. In particular, friction ratio and soil behaviour type index have been suggested as providing indications of soil compressibility, referenced as the slope of the critical state line. Two of these correlations are critically assessed through the identification and analysis of data from 31 sites where both CPT and relevant laboratory testing were conducted. This process indicates that while the additional data analyzed in this study are generally consistent with previous correlations in terms of trend, significant scatter is evident. In addition, the difficulty in directly relating recovered samples to specific CPT data is outlined.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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