MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329026315 · doi:10.1520/gtj103808

A Transparent Sand for Geotechnical Laboratory Modeling

2011· article· en· W2329026315 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

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)Materials scienceSoil waterSoil testComposite materialGeologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper describes a new transparent granular soil that can be used for laboratory geotechnical modeling purposes. The transparent soil consists of fused quartz particles in combination with a mixture of two mineral oils as pore fluid. The solid particles and the matching liquid have the same refractive index. The soil has important advantages with respect to transparency, stability, health safety, and utility over glass and silica gel materials. The transparent soil is also inexpensive compared to silica gel-fluid materials that have been used in the past. Conventional laboratory shear box, triaxial compression, and permeability tests were carried out to demonstrate that the mechanical properties and hydraulic permeability of the transparent soil are typical of granular soils with angular particles.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.155 · 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