MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555232338

Lessons Learned From Full Scale Testing Of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls

2000· article· en· W2555232338 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueISRM International Symposium · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringFull scaleWork (physics)Scale (ratio)GeosyntheticsGeologyEngineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceStructural engineeringGeographyMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper summarizes work by the writers that is focussed on a program of full scale model tests of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls carried out by the Geotechnical Research Group at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC). Over a period of 13 years, a total of 13 significant full scale walls have been constructed. All of the structures were surcharge loaded to stress levels well in excess of working load conditions and in several cases were taken to collapse. The data gathered from this program has been useful to identify important performance features of the reinforced soil structures and to identify sources of conservatism in current methods of analysis for geosynthetic reinforced soil wall structures in North America. The high quality data has also proved useful for calibration of numerical models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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