MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924956182 · doi:10.1061/9780784482131.007

Inferring Drainage Conditions during In Situ Cone Penetration

2019· article· en· W2924956182 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Styler, J. Greig, Mary Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Congress 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsConetec Investigations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn situPenetration (warfare)DrainageGeologyMaterials scienceCone (formal languages)Geotechnical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsAlgorithmOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different data reduction formulas are used with drained, partially drained, and undrained piezocone test (CPTu) data. In practice, drainage conditions are inferred based on a characterized soil behavior type (SBT) from the CPTu profile. Alternatively, drainage conditions around the cone probe can be confirmed from CPTu pore-pressure dissipation (PPD) tests. This alternative is time-consuming and only provides confirmation of the drainage conditions at a discrete point in the profile. This paper reports on the relationship between SBT indices and drainage conditions over a dataset of 2792 PPD tests. We evaluated the predictive capabilities of the SBT indices to infer undrained behavior using a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve was 75–76%, in-between a perfect metric (100%) and an uninformative metric (50%).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeo-Congress 2019Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207