MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186539334 · doi:10.6310/jog.2014.9(2).3

EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE CORRECTIONS ON TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTING OF SANDS

2014· article· en· W2186539334 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tarek Omar, Abouzar Sadrekarimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of geoengineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriaxial shear testGeotechnical engineeringVoid ratioShear (geology)GeologyShear strength (soil)Monotonic functionSoil waterMathematicsSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triaxial tests are often used to determine the behavior and strength characteristics of soils for geotechnical engineering analysis and design. Triaxial testing involves many sources of error that could significantly affect shear strength parameters if not corrected. These errors and the available correction methods are thoroughly reviewed in this study in a series of monotonic triaxial compression tests on loose Ottawa sand specimens. The significance of each correction on the triaxial test results and the achieved adjustments of the shear strength parameters and void ratio are discussed and evaluated. It is found that negligence in making corrections accounting for these errors could result in an overestimation of as much as 44% and 14.7° in the measurement of undrained and drained shear strength parameters, respectively.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of geoengineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207