MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W242704115 · doi:10.1520/gtj103092

Improved Curve Fitting Methods for Underdamped Slug Tests

2012· article· en· W242704115 on OpenAlexaff
Robert P. Chapuis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologySlug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A slug test yielding an oscillating water level response is called “underdamped.” Usually, test data are fitted visually to theoretical solutions. Considering that visual fits are user dependent, this paper provides two best fit user independent methods for analyzing test data. It provides also a velocity graph method that can be used to select only those data that are not influenced by initial dynamic effects such as splashing. Several examples are provided, with emphasis on the utility of the three checks required by ASTM D5785. It is shown that the selected value of the soil modulus or its storativity S does not interfere with the fitting process but does influence the derived k value by about ±30% (the lower the selected S value, the higher the resulting k value). If the elastic S value is confused with a specific yield, the interpretation results do not pass the three checks of ASTM D5785, and, as shown by an example of a few hundred tests, they might yield k values that are wrong by about 300%, with serious consequences for estimates of groundwater velocity and the fate of contaminants.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207