MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276161907 · doi:10.1144/qjegh2014-101

The impact of hydrogeology on the instability of a road cutting through a drumlin in Northern Ireland

2016· article· en· W2276161907 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. B. Hughes, G. R. CLARKE, Ruth Harley, S. Lee Barbour

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsDrumlinGeologyHydrogeologyInstabilityGeotechnical engineeringOceanographyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the hydrogeological processes that caused unexpected instability and quick conditions during the excavation of a 25 m deep cutting through a drumlin in County Down, Northern Ireland. A conceptual hydrogeological model of the cutting, based on pore pressures monitored during and after the excavation, demonstrates how quick conditions at the toe of the cutting caused liquefaction of the till. Stability of the cutting was re-established by draining the highly permeable, weathered greywacke that underlies the drumlin, through the use of a deep toe drain. In spite of this drainage, the cutting was only marginally stable, owing to the presence of a low-permeability zone in the till above the bedrock, which limits the reduction of elevated pore pressures within the upper to mid-depths of the drumlin. The factor of safety has been further improved by the addition of vertical relief drains at the crest and berm of the cutting to relieve the pore pressures within the upper till by intercepting the weathered bedrock. The paper also highlights the importance of carrying out an adequate site investigation compliant with Eurocode 7 and additional monitoring in excavations in stiff, low-permeability till.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and HydrogeologySame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207