MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900111533 · doi:10.1680/jenge.15.00055

Shear behaviour of Canadian marine clay/geomembrane interface under freeze–thaw cycles

2018· article· en· W2900111533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ling Li, Mamadou Fall

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Geotechnics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeomembraneHigh-density polyethyleneGeotechnical engineeringShear (geology)Direct shear testPolyethyleneMaterials scienceShear strength (soil)Friction angleShear stressComposite materialGeologySoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of the number of freeze–thaw (F–T) cycles on the interface shear behaviour of a compacted marine clay (Leda clay)/smooth high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane is investigated in this paper. Shear tests are performed on samples subjected to various numbers of F–T cycles: zero, one, two, three, five and ten. The test results show that the interface shear strength of the Leda clay/smooth HDPE geomembrane is lower than that of Leda clay. The interface shear strength of the Leda clay/smooth HDPE geomembrane decreases with increasing number of F–T cycles. Furthermore, the interface shear friction angles of the Leda clay/smooth HDPE geomembrane are significantly reduced within the first three F–T cycles. The reduction in strength beyond the three F–T cycles is negligible. The total decrease in the shear strength of the samples that are not subjected to an F–T cycle compared to that of samples subjected to ten F–T cycles is 18·3, 17·6 and 13·6% under a vertical stress of 150, 250 and 350 kPa, respectively.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental GeotechnicsSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207