Commercial Considerations for Contemporary Geotechnical Grouting Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The state of the art of geotechnical grouting projects has advanced considerably in the last decade. Notable achievements include the use of computer-aided grouting systems, balanced stable grouts, automated batching, measurement while drilling, borehole digital mapping and deviation measuring tools. When new tools and techniques are employed on projects it is inevitable that older practices that are thought were serving well now prove to be detrimental to overall project success. There are two areas that are significant contributing factors for failure that have not evolved in step with the technical advancements to date. These areas are budget costing (pricing, data and measurement) and scheduling (planning, sequence and effort). This paper examines the costing side of the modern grouting project referencing scheduling only as required. The structure of how a project is priced has a significant effect on a project’s chance for success. New techniques and equipment must be integrated into the whole project costing equation to optimize success for all stakeholders. This has not been the case in many projects in the past few years because for all the successes there appear to have been significant failures also. The simple fact that most geotechnical grouting projects cannot be precisely defined at the onset is a fundamental flaw if commercial requirements are not created to accommodate this variability for all stakeholders’ best interests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".