MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943897012 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0398

Creep and consolidation of a stiff clay under saturated and unsaturated conditions

2019· article· en· W2943897012 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Rezania, Meghdad Bagheri, Mohaddeseh Mousavi Nezhad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOedometer testConsolidation (business)CreepGeotechnical engineeringSuctionGeologyMaterials scienceSoil waterComposite materialEngineeringSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the one-dimensional (1D) time-dependent behaviour of natural and reconstituted London Clay samples under saturated and unsaturated conditions is studied. For this purpose, a set of 1D consolidation tests including multi-staged loading (MSL) oedometer tests and single-staged loading (SSL) long-term oedometer creep tests were carried out on saturated and unsaturated specimens. Conventional oedometer cells were used for tests on saturated specimens, whereas a newly designed unsaturated oedometer cell, equipped with two high-capacity tensiometers (HCTs) for suction measurements, was used for unsaturated tests. The tests results revealed stress dependency and suction dependency of primary and secondary consolidation responses of the soil samples. Furthermore, counter to formerly acknowledged suggestions of independency of the slope of normal consolidation line to suction changes, it was observed that an increase in suction results in a decrease of the slope of compression curve (C c ) and the creep index (C α e ) values and an increase in yield vertical net stress (σ p ). Moreover, the C α e /C c ratio for London Clay was found to be stress- and suction-dependent, unlike the previously suggested hypotheses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207