MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966038191 · doi:10.3934/geosci.2019.3.591

Investigation and geotechnical characterization of Perniö clay, Finland

2019· article· en· W2966038191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruno Di Buò, Marco D’Ignazio, Juha Selänpää, Markus Haikola, Tim Länsivaara, Marta Di Sante

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Geosciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringConsolidation (business)GeologyShear strength (soil)EngineeringSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the behavior of soft sensitive clays is a key aspect of geotechnical design, especially in those regions where constructions are planned in marine clay areas. In Finland, one of the major geotechnical issues is the stability and deformation of the railway embankments located on soft soil deposits. The Tampere University of Technology (TUT) and the Finnish Transport Agency (FTA) have been carrying out a research project aiming to a better understanding of strength and deformation properties of Finnish soft clays. As a part of this project, a detailed site investigation was conducted at Perniö site in Western Finland. This paper presents the details of the geotechnical investigation, including field testing, sampling operations, and the laboratory testing program. In particular, an open drive tube sampler with 132 mm diameter, designed at TUT, was used to collect high quality samples. For comparison, samples were also taken using the conventional piston samplers and Sherbrooke Mini-block sampler. Field testing included piezocone, vane shear, and seismic piezocone. Laboratory testing consisted of index, consolidation, triaxial and simple shear tests. A comprehensive study of all these data is presented in a framework to describe Perniö soft clay.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIMS GeosciencesSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207