MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319047400 · doi:10.1061/40516(292)22

Construction of a BIN-WALL over Highly Compressible Soil

2000· article· en· W2319047400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark J. Carlson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinTest siteTraverseGeologyLeveeGeotechnical engineeringElevation (ballistics)CompactionShieldHydrology (agriculture)Mining engineeringEngineeringGeodesyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of a poor line-of-site for traffic traversing North Getty Street in Muskegon, Michigan, in addition to the potential for flooding of the project site it was desirable to construct two (2) parallel prefabricated BIN-WALL structures on both sides of the existing roadway alignment such that Getty Street could be elevated above Ryerson Bayou. The length of the west BIN-WALL was 152.4 meters (500 feet) in length, the east wall was 173.7 meters (570 feet) in length, and the individual bin heights varied from 1.73 meters (6 feet) to about 5.39 meters (18 feet) along the length of the BIN-WALLs in order to accommodate the topography of the site. Six (6) test borings were performed across the length of the site to ascertain the subsurface conditions beneath the site, which disclosed an extensive deposit of peat, marl, and loose sand that extends to a depth of about 7.7 meters (25 feet) beneath the existing site grade (corrected standard penetration test "N" values were typically revealed to be between 1 and 6 within this deposit). In addition, free ground water was encountered above the proposed bearing elevation over a significant length of each of the proposed BIN-WALLs. Several ground modification techniques such as dynamic deep compaction, vibrocompaction, and stone columns were considered for possible implementation in remediating the site. However, all of the aforementioned techniques proved to be too costly given the funding available for the project. Therefore, an innovative mode-of-operation which included the removal of much of the deleterious soil materials, in conjunction with the subsequent emplacement of a geogrid-reinforced crushed stone structural pad that was placed in the "wet" allowed for the efficient and cost effective solution for this project.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207