Physical and Mechanical Properties of Ottawa F65 Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of soil characterization and element tests of Ottawa F65 sand. The data presented is intended to be used as calibration material for the prediction exercise conducted as part of the Liquefaction Experiments and Analysis Project (LEAP 2017). The databank generated includes soil specific gravity tests, particle size analysis, hydraulic conductivity tests, maximum and minimum void ratio tests, and cyclic triaxial stress-controlled tests. An effort was made to ensure the consistency and repeatability of the test results by reducing the sources of variability in the sample preparations and increasing the number of tests. The uniformity of the soil was evaluated by conducting tests on samples from five different batches. The results showed that the sand is uniform among the five batches. Due to significant variability in previously reported maximum and minimum void ratio results, the effects of the test operator were studied by comparing test results obtained from three different operators. For the triaxial tests, a constant height dry pluviation method was used for sample preparation. To eliminate the effect of the human error in maintaining a constant drop height and to ensure consistency of the sand fabric between different samples, a device was developed to facilitate the sample preparation. The cyclic triaxial experiments were performed using three different soil densities, and a liquefaction strength curve was obtained for each density based on a 2.5% single amplitude axial strain criteria. The developed databank in this study was made publicly available for the community through DesignSafe.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".