MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325679467 · doi:10.1061/41095(365)244

Wick Drains and Rock Fill Save the Day: A Case for Settlement and Stability Solutions

2010· article· en· W2325679467 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoFlorida 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)LeveeGeotechnical engineeringExcavationGeologyMining engineeringRock blastingScheduleCivil engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greengate Mall was initially developed by placing up to 15 m (50 ft.) of fill. Construction of Greengate Super Center at the same site required additional 15 m (50 ft.) of new fill. The subsurface investigation and analysis indicated possibility of excessive long-term settlement. Wick drains and rock fill were used to solve settlement and time constraint problems and at the same time cut down the overall construction costs. Old concrete was crushed and used as porous blanket over wick drains. Nearby borrow site provided hard sandstone as new fill and a source of pavement base. Rock blasting required monitoring of adjacent dam, bridges, and other buildings. Under new fill the old fill settled by several centimeters (inches) and work was completed on schedule. Thoughtful engineering and careful construction planning saved valuable time and money. The Greengate Super Center and the rock fill embankment have performed well for the last six years with no obvious signs of stress.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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