MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999891555 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105125

Data on a coupled ENN / t-SNE model for soil liquefaction evaluation

2020· article· en· W2999891555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Guy Atangana Njock, Shui‐Long Shen, Annan Zhou, Hai‐Min Lyu

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityShantou University
KeywordsLiquefactionComputer scienceData miningGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data presented in this paper pertain to case records of liquefaction potential surveys in earthquake prone areas. Field performances of 219 sites obtained from various regions (U.S.A, Japan, Turkey, China, Canada, etc …) are put on display. Specifically, this database consists of 253 cone penetration test (CPT) field records, among which 72 cases that did not liquefied and 181 cases that liquefied. In total, 10 principal variables are tabulated including the earthquake magnitude, maximum ground surface acceleration, depth, water depth, total overburden stress, effective overburden stress, Cone Penetration Test (CPT) tip resistance, CPT friction ratio, fines content, shear stress ratio. These data were arbitrarily split into a testing set of 53 cases and a training set of 200 cases. These field observations are compared to prediction values of liquefaction potential assessed using the evolutionary neural network proposed for "Evaluation of soil liquefaction with AI technology incorporating a coupled ENN/t-SNE model" [1].

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207