MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000676916 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2019-0301

Experimental study of hydromechanical behaviour of a compacted lateritic sandy lean clay

2020· article· en· W3000676916 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C.W.W. Ng, Damilola Bashir Akinniyi, Chao Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSuctionCohesion (chemistry)Shearing (physics)Soil waterMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeGeologyComposite materialSoil scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lateritic clay is widely distributed in tropical areas and used extensively for foundation materials. Compared to other soils, it is rich in iron and aluminum oxides (sesquioxides), which enhance the formation of soil aggregates. The principal objective of this study is to investigate the hydromechanical behaviour of a lateritic sandy lean clay. All specimens were compacted at the same condition and then wetted to a predefined suction (0, 50, 150 kPa). Suction-controlled isotropic compression and shear tests were carried out. Moreover, soil microstructures at various suctions were determined using the mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) techniques. The compressibility of the lateritic clay decreased by about 50% as suction decreased from 150 to 0 kPa. This is mainly because as the suction decreased to 0 kPa, the sizes of interaggregate pores decreased, as revealed by MIP data. During shearing, the critical state friction angle appeared to be independent of suction. The contribution of suction to the apparent cohesion is unexpectedly low, likely because the interaggregate pores have a low degree of saturation and the contribution of the water meniscus on shear strength is very low.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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