MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2601141284

Estimation of the small strain stiffness of glacial till using geophysical methods and barometric loading response

2015· article· en· W2601141284 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Harley, Paolo Bergamo, David Hughes, Shane Donohue, Laura Carse, Lee Barbour

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Portal (Queen's University Belfast) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsGeologyGlacial periodStrain (injury)StiffnessGeodesyGeomorphologyEngineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stiffness values in geotechnical structures can range over many orders of magnitude for relatively small operational strains. The typical strain levels where soil stiffness changes most dramatically is in the range 0.01-0.1%, however soils do not exhibit linear stress-strain behaviour at small strains. Knowledge of the in situ stiffness at small strain is important in geotechnical numerical modelling and design. The stress-strain regime of cut slopes is complex, as we have different principle stress directions at different positions along the potential failure plane. For example, loading may be primarily in extension near the toe of the slope, while compressive loading is predominant at the crest of a slope. Cuttings in heavily overconsolidated clays are known to be susceptible to progressive failure and subsequent strain softening, in which progressive yielding propagates from the toe towards the crest of the slope over time. In order to gain a better understanding of the rate of softening it would be advantageous to measure changes in small strain stiffness in the field.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Portal (Queen's University Belfast)→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→