On the need for dependence characterization in random fields: Findings from cone penetration test (CPT) data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random field theory is widely used to model spatial variability of soil properties. However, random field modeling focuses mainly on the estimate of spatial correlation structure. The dependence structure that is necessary to construct the joint probability distribution over a random field is usually not characterized. The aim of this research is twofold. First, this paper focuses on characterizing the dependence structure underlying a random field based on cone penetration test (CPT) data. The copula approach is adopted to represent dependencies and the best-fit dependence (copulas) are identified from the CPT data. It is found that the nonGaussian dependencies can be a real phenomenon in spatial fluctuation of the soil shear strength parameter. Second, this paper provides formulations for generating random fields with Gaussian or nonGaussian dependencies, and investigates whether the improper use of the dependence structure could lead to significant bias in failure probability. The generated one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) random fields of a cohesive slope under different dependencies are compared. Large deviation in probabilistic results implies that the effect of dependencies on failure probability can be nontrivial. Therefore, the complete random field characterization should involve the estimate of both correlation structure and dependence structure.
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 | 0.010 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".