MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897342823 · doi:10.1680/jgele.18.00105

Characterisation of a subaqueously deposited silt iron ore tailings

2018· article· en· W2897342823 on OpenAlexaff
David Reid, Riccardo Fanni, Kai Xiang Koh, I. Orea

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiltTailingsLayeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMineralogyMaterials scienceMetallurgyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A geotechnical investigation was carried out to characterise a subaqueously deposited, primarily silt, iron ore tailings. Piezocone penetration tests (CPTu) were carried out followed by piston tube sampling at a selected target depth. Piston samples provided measures of in situ density (by means of gravimetric water content), and supplied material for reconstituted and intact laboratory testing. Reconstituted samples prepared using moist tamping (MT) for determination of the critical state locus (CSL), along with intact specimens, were both tested. The potential existence of layering within the recovered specimens was also assessed, indicating near-homogenous samples. The laboratory testing of intact specimens suggested that they appeared to tend towards the same CSL as that obtained from reconstituted loose MT specimens. This tentative result differs from some previous comparisons – with the agreement seen in this case being suggested to primarily result from a lack of layering. In situ state as inferred from both CPTu data and comparison of tube densities to the CSL suggested a loose state.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechnique LettersSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207