Evaluation of sample quality from different sampling methods in Finnish soft sensitive clays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of reliable geotechnical parameters from laboratory testing is highly dependent on sample quality. Over the past decades, undisturbed sampling of soft sensitive clays has been performed using various apparatuses and procedures. This paper outlines details of the design and performance of a new Laval-type tube sampler employed for the investigation of five soft clay sites located in Finland. The investigation was conducted using the new tube sampler and two different piston samplers. The sample quality was evaluated based on the recompression volume during reconsolidation to the in situ effective stress in constant-rate-of-strain oedometer tests. Test results show that tube samples are generally characterized by higher quality, especially in low-plasticity clays. In particular, the quality of piston samples is highly affected by the apparatus condition and sampling operations. Furthermore, the influence of storage time on tube samples was investigated. To guarantee a proper confinement, and thus reduce swelling, a pressurized system was applied to the tube samples obtained in two soft clay sites. Results demonstrate that the sample quality is not significantly affected by storage time as long as the soil is properly stored in the tube.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".