Investigation of Liquid Limit of Kamloops Silt by Soft-base Casagrande Apparatus and British Drop-Cone Penetrometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was to investigate the liquid limit of Kamloops silt using two world-wide popular testing apparatus: Casagrande device and British style Drop-Cone penetrometer. The testing with Casagrande device was conducted by a group of soil mechanics students in accordance with ASTM D423-61T (1961); the testing with British style Drop-Cone penetrometer was performed by two senior undergraduate engineering students in accordance with BS 1377 (1975). The liquid limit of Kamloops silt was found to be approximately 23%. The results obtained by both apparatus agreed to each other quite well, so these two testing methods can be alternative of each other. However, using Drop-Cone penetrometer required less experience of the operator and yielded results more easily and quickly than using Casagrande device. This paper also introduced the concept and the significance of Atterberg Limits, and summarized the development of Casagrande method by Arthur Casagrande and the evolution of Drop-Cone penetrating method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".