MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555398106 · doi:10.1061/9780784412121.448

Shear Strength of Water-Repellent Hydrophobic Granular Media

2012· article· en· W2555398106 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yong‐Hoon Byun, Horacio Jose Varona Morato, Tae Sup Yun, Jong‐Sub Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoCongress 2012 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMcGill University
KeywordsWaterproofingSoil waterWater repellentMaterials scienceComposite materialSilanizationHydrophobeWettingGeotechnical engineeringShear strength (soil)Degree of saturationSaturation (graph theory)Chemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural soils may be changed from wettable (hereafter hydrophilic) soils to water-repellent (hereafter hydrophobic) soil due to forest fires or oil spillages. Also, the friction of hydrophobic surfaces is much lower than that of hydrophilic surfaces. The goal of this study is to compare the characteristics of shear strength on the hydrophilic and hydrophobic soils. Glass beads were synthesized by silanization technique for hydrophobic granular media. Each specimen for hydrophilic and hydrophobic granular media is prepared to a degree of saturation of S = 0 and 5%. Experimental results show that the shear strength of hydrophobic soils is lower than that of hydrophilic soils due to the difference of friction and water repellency. This study suggests that the strength of hydrophobic granular media should be considered when the soil subgrade is treated for waterproofing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoCongress 2012Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207