MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937773177 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2019-0036

Strength envelope of granular soil stabilized by multi-axial geogrid in large triaxial tests

2019· article· en· W2937773177 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew Lees, Johan Clausen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeogridEnvelope (radar)Geotechnical engineeringTriaxial shear testMaterials scienceFinite element methodStructural engineeringComposite materialGeologyEngineeringReinforcement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional methods of characterizing the mechanical properties of soil and geogrid separately are not suited to multi-axial stabilizing geogrid that depends critically on the interaction between soil particles and geogrid. This has been overcome by testing the soil and geogrid product together as one composite material in large specimen triaxial compression tests and fitting a nonlinear failure envelope to the peak failure states. As such, the performance of stabilizing, multi-axial geogrid can be characterized in a measurable way. The failure envelope was adopted in a linear elastic – perfectly plastic constitutive model and implemented into finite element analysis, incorporating a linear variation of enhanced strength with distance from the geogrid plane. This was shown to produce reasonably accurate simulations of triaxial compression tests of both stabilized and nonstabilized specimens at all the confining stresses tested with one set of input parameters for the failure envelope and its variation with distance from the geogrid plane.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207