MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807708407 · doi:10.1061/9780784481578.061

Environmental Impacts of Drilled Shafts and Driven Piles in Sand

2018· article· en· W2807708407 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIFCEE 2018 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringGeologyPetroleum engineeringMining engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geotechnical engineers have been active in evaluating certain geo-structures in an effort to reduce their associated environmental impacts. However, there is a lack of understanding of how different design methods for the same type of geo-structure can affect the environment. Drilled shafts and driven piles can be designed in many different ways, and the selection of a valid design method entirely depends on the designer’s preference. In this study, single drilled shafts and driven piles are designed for theoretical sand profiles using eight different design methods, and a life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted to evaluate the environmental impacts of the designs. In a sustainable perspective, it is important to realize that the decisions made in engineering projects can potentially impose substantial and long-term impacts on the environment. As geotechnical engineers, careful selection of design methods and decision-making throughout geotechnical projects can possibly reduce those environmental impacts.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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