Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of difficulties in obtaining undisturbed samples in cohesionless soils, empirical correlations based on cone penetration test (CPT) results, often developed from calibration chamber experiments, are widely used for determining many soil parameters for geotechnical investigation. This paper describes the application of 19 reduced-scale calibration chamber CPTs for examining the empirical correlations used for predicting the relative density of loose to medium-dense sands. A reduced-scale subtraction cone with an apex angle of 60° and a net area ratio of 0·75 was used in the laboratory tests. Current methods for estimating relative density present very large differences among themselves as well as with the experiments of this study, rendering them meaningless for general application in all sands. The state parameter is suggested as a more reliable and universal alternative to relative density for estimating the degree of compaction of any sand deposit from CPT data. It is demonstrated that an empirical method provides reasonable estimates of the state parameter for the CPT experiments of this study. Compared with relative density, the state parameter method can be particularly useful for examining the liquefaction susceptibility of sands.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".