MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790194526 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2017-0498

Interface response-based soil classification framework

2018· article· en· W2790194526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregory L. Hebeler, Alejandro Martínez, J. David Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverburdenShearing (physics)Geotechnical engineeringSoil waterCalcareousGeologyMaterials scienceSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current soil classification systems based on cone penetration testing (CPT) utilize a combination of the tip resistance (q t ), pore pressure (u 2 ), and friction sleeve (f s ) measurements as inputs. While the q t measurements are typically normalized by the overburden stress, the f s measurements are often normalized by the net tip resistance, leading to the use of parameters that are dependent on each other. This paper presents the development of a soil classification framework that utilizes a normalized multi-friction parameter (MFP) and the CPT normalized tip resistance. The MFP parameter is obtained from measurements with textured friction sleeves from soundings with multi-sleeve attachments. The use of textured friction sleeves allows for fundamental differences in soil–structure interface behavior and particle sizes to be captured due to the significant degree of shearing induced within the soil. This classification framework was developed with results from over 30 soundings at six different sites. The analysis of samples taken from the field indicates that the proposed framework provides a classification that better agrees with the grain-size distribution for residuum, calcareous and intermediate soils, as compared to existing CPT-based systems. The potential development of a simplified probe with just one additional friction sleeve sensor can provide appropriate classification results and would facilitate adoption for use in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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