MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2377402859

DICUSSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNICAL MEASURE FOR THE PERCUSSION BORING INJECTION PILE IN KARST REGION

2002· article· en· W2377402859 on OpenAlexaff
Zhou Zong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geological Hazards and Environment Preservation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeomechanics and Mining Engineering
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarstPilePercussionDrillingFoundation (evidence)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMining engineeringGeographyArchaeologyMechanical engineeringPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pile foundation type should be chosen carefully as the geological conditions are very complicated in the Karst region. The percussion boring injection pile is rational type, however, much difficulties will be faced during construction. In this paper, a successful case of the construction of percussion boring injection pile for a certain new airport building in Karst region is stated. In the construction site, the complicated geological conditions, such as the thick sand layer, the undulate surface of the stiff limestone, the high dip angle, the developed crake and Karst cavern, made much trouble during the construction. Especially, much attention should be paid to the prevention from accidents during percussive drilling, the criterion of the rock full-face, the injection of underwater concrete and the other unpredicted trouble. After the difficulties are analyzed carefully, the effective and rational technical measure is adopted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geological Hazards and Environment PreservationSame topicGeomechanics and Mining EngineeringFrench-language works237,207