MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2368347690

Research on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method of pile foundation

2002· article· en· W2368347690 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEvaluation Methods in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileAnalytic hierarchy processFoundation (evidence)Fuzzy logicEvaluation methodsEngineeringFuzzy mathematicsAnalogyQuality (philosophy)Fuzzy setComputer scienceMathematicsReliability engineeringOperations researchGeotechnical engineeringArtificial intelligenceFuzzy numberGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method of pile foundation quality is presented in this paper.The peculiarities of this method include the establishment of the membership functions of the non quantitative factors by analogy method,determination of the weight value of each factor according to its significance by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP),use of the weighted average model in evaluation and classification of the grade of pile foundation by the asymmetric approach degree method.The use of the method is illustrated by an engineering example.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.003

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation Methods in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207