MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327224080 · doi:10.1061/40802(189)75

Results of Long-Term Infiltration Tests on Unsaturated Swelling Clay

2006· article· en· W2327224080 on OpenAlexaff
Greg Siemens, James Blatz, D. G. Priyanto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)Geotechnical engineeringDrainageSuctionSwellingWater flowMaterials scienceDegree of saturationGeologyComposite materialSoil waterSoil scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of two long-term infiltration tests conducted in a triaxial cell are presented. Results of the testing are examined to assess mechanical and hydraulic behavior of an unsaturated swelling clay. In one test, radial flow is enforced with water pressure applied at the perimeter and drainage is allowed at the center of the specimen. In the second long-term test, vertical flow is applied with water pressure at the base and drainage is allowed out the top of the specimen. In both cases water flow into specimens and air flow at the downstream side is measured along with volume changes. Suction at the center of the specimen is measured in the vertical flow test using an embedded sensor. Water flow, volume change and suction responses are discussed to assess how flow and boundary conditions affect behavior. Differences in behavior during infiltration are noted due to anisotropy in the compacted specimens. Final distributions of water content, bulk density, dry density and degree of saturation are presented and discussed. Results show that these infiltration tests are important for understanding the physical movement of water through unsaturated swelling clay materials.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207