MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333077211 · doi:10.1061/9780784412121.288

Soil Characterisation of an Artificial Island Accounting for Heterogeneity

2012· article· en· W2333077211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Lloret, Michael Hicks, Soon Yee Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoCongress 2012 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationCone penetration testProbability density functionScale (ratio)Environmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceStatisticsMathematicsCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The heterogeneous nature of soils and other geo-materials results in uncertainty in design and so it is important to incorporate this heterogeneity in analyses of geo-structure performance. However, before analysing the geo-structure itself, it is first necessary to statistically characterise the site in terms of appropriate soil properties. This paper focuses on the description of this first stage in the analysis by presenting a case study. Numerous artificial sand islands were designed and constructed in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, for use as hydrocarbon exploration platforms, in the 1970's and 1980's. For some of these islands, extensive Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data are available for characterising the hydraulically placed sands and for investigating the general factors affecting the in situ density. This paper investigates data from one of these islands. An existing methodology to statistically evaluate CPT data in terms of state parameter is described, the aim being to characterise the deposited sands in terms of state parameter statistics (mean, standard deviation, probability density function and scale of fluctuation). From the results obtained, a discussion on the factors influencing the quality of the fill in terms of in-situ density is presented.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoCongress 2012Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207