MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777459940 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0584

Analysis of measured pore pressure response to atmospheric pressure changes to evaluate small-strain moduli: methodology and case studies

2017· article· en· W2777459940 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael T. Hendry, Laura A. Smith, M. Jim Hendry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiezometerPore water pressureGroundwaterAquiferAtmospheric pressureGeotechnical engineeringLinear regressionEffective stressStress (linguistics)Environmental scienceGeologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of pore pressure responses to fluctuations in total stress (resulting from barometric pressure changes) to calculate moduli and other material properties is a recently developed technique being applied to deep aquitard formations. Initially, the method has relied on visual interpretation of the data from grouted-in piezometers, resulting in a qualitative result with little opportunity to define the quality of measured data; more recently, linear and multiple regression analyses were used to assess the same properties with limited success. Here, a methodology is developed to determine loading efficiency from pore pressure measurements using filtering and numerical regression. The results indicate a near linear relationship between the change in pore pressure and change in stress (barometric pressure), resulting in an estimation of loading efficiency and quantification of the quality of fit. Four to 6 days of data appear to best isolate the barometric fluctuation with the developed filters. The technique is successfully applied to a “simple” site, where groundwater conditions are relatively stable, as well as a complex site, where groundwater conditions are changing due to fluctuating river levels. The successful application to the latter site shows that robust analysis is possible, even for dynamic and complex environments, and that the method represents a viable alternative for estimating material parameters of formations that are historically difficult to characterize.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207