Evaluation of CPT-Based Empirical Characterization Methods for Sands
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the difficulties in obtaining undisturbed samples in cohessionlesss soils, CPT-based empirical correlations 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 cone penetration tests for evaluating empirical correlations for predicting relative density, unit weight, and constrained modulus for loose to medium-dense sands. A 6 mm-diameter subtraction cone with an apex angle of 60o and a net area ratio of 0.75 is used in the laboratory tests. Cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore pressure at the cone shoulder are measured. No excess pore pressure developed in the CPT experiments on the fine sand. Empirical correlations are suggested for predicting the dry and saturated unit weights of silica sands. Existing empirical correlations display a very wide range of estimates for sand relative density and often very different from the experiments of this study. However, the constrained moduli exhibit a better agreement with an empirical correlation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it