Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanded polystyrene(EPS)composite soil is a new kind of lightweight fill material.Compared with well-known EPS geofoam,EPS composite soil will be widely used in the future.The fundamental physico-mechanical properties of EPS composite soil have been studied by many researchers.However,the creep properties of EPS composite soil have not been published in the literatures according to our best knowledge.Firstly,the triaxial undrained creep tests were conducted on EPS composite soil with various confining pressures.Secondly,three well-known empirical creep models were used to simulate the creep behavior of EPS composite soil including SinghMitchell model,Mesri model,and Findley model.SinghMithcell model and Mesri model were able to predict the long-term deformation of EPS composite soil,however,they could not describe the initial sharp rising deformation.It was observed that Findley model which was firstly used to predict the creep behavior of EPS geofoam had the best fitting results under higher deviator stress level.To some extent,the creep property of EPS composite soil was similar to that of EPS geofoam.Finally,a new creep model was proposed for EPS composite soil,in which the element models were used to describe the elastic strain and empirical models to describe the plastic strain.It was shown that whatever the stress levels were,the proposed new creep model could not only describe the initial sharp rising deformation but also predict the long-term deformation,i.e.creep deformation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".