MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756060541 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2017-0078

Test fill brought to failure on soft plastic marine clay at Onsøy, Norway

2017· article· en· W2756060541 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toralv Berre

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStatens vegvesen
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)GeologyStage (stratigraphy)PlasticitySafety factorShear (geology)Shear strength (soil)Materials scienceEngineeringComposite materialSoil waterPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A test fill at Onsøy, close to the town of Fredrikstad in Norway, was built on a very soft marine clay with in situ vane strength as low as 11 kPa and a plasticity index varying from 34 to 50. The dimensions at the bottom of the long test fill were 20 m × 60 m with a height of 2.3 m. The fill, as placed in the first stage, had a computed factor of safety against foundation failure of 1.35 based on in situ vane strength. The fill was allowed to sit for about 3 years (from 1972 to 1975) before it was, in a second stage, brought to failure in about 4.3 days by raising the height. This second stage is the subject of this paper. Back-calculation of the failure by undrained stability analysis based on in situ vane tests performed shortly before the start of the second stage, based on undrained triaxial and constant volume direct simple shear tests on specimens from tube samples taken shortly before the start of the second stage and reconsolidated to the in situ effective stresses, gave factors of safety varying from 0.88 to 1.45 depending on type of analysis. Settlement values computed at the centreline of the fill for the second stage based on the results from undrained compression triaxial tests agreed reasonably well with the field measurements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207