MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2360926824

Status and prospect of transparent soil experimental technique

2011· article· en· W2360926824 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

VenueMeitan xuebao · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital image processingSpeckle patternGeotechnical engineeringDisplacement (psychology)Sample (material)Computer scienceImage processingGeologyImage (mathematics)Computer visionPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presented a comprehensive review on the state of the art in transparent soil modeling technique,which included its origin,the sample preparation,geotechnical properties,the experimental methods,digital image processing methods,and the applications of transparent soil modeling.The laser speckle technique was used to capture the internal information in transparent soil.The internal displacement or seepage from two consecutive speckle images was calculated using digital image processing technology.After review of existing applications of transparent soil in geotechnical engineering,a prospect on further development and applications of this technique were discussed.For further research,it is vital to establish standard sample preparation procedures,develop standard modeling methods,and derive similarity laws.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.186 · 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