MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2316222214 · doi:10.1061/9780784413425.060

Interpreting <i>c</i> <sub>hp</sub> Value from Non-Standard Piezocone Dissipation Curves

2014· article· en· W2316222214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Md. Julfikar Hossain, Jinchun Chai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)DissipationAnisotropyGeotechnical engineeringValue (mathematics)Environmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeologyThermodynamicsPhysicsEconomicsAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two existing methods for estimating in-situ coefficient of consolidation in the horizontal direction (chp) from "non-standard" piezocone dissipation curves (initial u increased for a short period and then dissipated) are applied to the test results in 11 sites in Japan, China, USA, UK, Italy and Canada. One method is correcting t50, the time period of measured pore water pressure (u2) dissipated from its maximum value to 50% of the maximum value (t50c method), and another is extrapolating √t (t is elapsed time) ∼u2 curve (√t method). The analysis results show that, for most cases, t50c method results in higher chp value than that of √t method. It is reasoned that chp value from t50c method is closer to the field "true" value. Comparing chp values from t50c method with the corresponding laboratory measured coefficient of consolidation in the vertical direction (cv) indicates that for most data chp/cv ratios are varied from about 3 to about 100. The data from six (6) sites in Jiangsu, China showed higher chp/cv ratio which implies that the sites may have higher anisotropic consolidation properties.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics→French-language works237,207→