Sample size determination in geotechnical site investigation considering spatial variation and correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site investigation is a fundamental element in geotechnical engineering practice, but only a small portion of geomaterials is sampled and tested during site investigation. This leads to a question of sample size determination: how many samples are needed to achieve a target level of accuracy for the results inferred from the samples? Sample size determination is a well-known topic in statistics and has many applications in a wide variety of areas. However, conventional statistical methods, which mainly deal with independent data, only have limited applications in geotechnical site investigation because geotechnical data are not independent, but spatially varying and correlated. Existing design codes around the world (e.g., Eurocode 7) only provide conceptual principles on sample size determination. No scientific or quantitative method is available for sample size determination in site investigation considering spatial variation and correlation of geotechnical properties. This study performs an extensive parametric study and develops a statistical chart for sample size determination with consideration of spatial variation and correlation using Bayesian compressive sensing or sampling. Real cone penetration test data and real laboratory test data are used to illustrate application of the proposed statistical chart, and the method is shown to perform well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".