Application of specialised in situ tests in Changi East reclamation projects, Singapore
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A land reclamation and ground improvement project requires an extensive study of underlying soils, fill material, performance of ground improvement works and shore-protection structures. The area of the Changi East project in Singapore is underlain by soft compressible soils, which will be filled with a greater thickness of granular soil; the project will create shore-protection structures. Therefore, the large magnitude of settlement and stability of shore-protection structures were major issues for the project. A ground improvement and engineering design process was required. This process required a detailed and comprehensive study of the ground profile and characterisation of underlying soils and fill material. Characterisation and interpretation of geotechnical parameters of soils applying specialised in situ testing has become popular due to its unique feature of measuring parameters under in situ conditions. The measured data from specialised in situ tests can be interpreted to obtain geotechnical parameters quickly in addition to soil classification and profiling without the need to collect samples. This paper presents application of specialised in situ tests as well as interpretation of measured data for land reclamation and ground improvement projects. This paper also discusses how these in situ testing methods were utilised to monitor and verify the progress of ground improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it