MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006753026 · doi:10.1680/jphmg.18.00082

On casting clay specimens of bespoke shear strength and sensitivity for landslide modelling

2020· article· en· W3006753026 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. J. Kennedy, Greg Siemens, W. Andy Take

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringWater contentGeologyShear strength (soil)Portland cementMaterials scienceCentrifugeCementDirect shear testSoil waterShear (geology)Composite materialSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensitive clay landslides are a geohazard often exhibiting flow-like retrogressive behaviour. Soils with high sensitivity experience significant strain softening − a key characteristic of these types of slope movements. In this paper, an experimental method using high early strength cement mixed with clay soil is investigated to cast repeatable samples of a bespoke shear strength and sensitivity while reducing specimen preparation time. The addition of cement bonds from hydration reactions was observed to encourage the development of a metastable soil structure with sufficiently high moisture content to exhibit both a high peak strength and a low remoulded strength. Various cement and water content mixtures were examined, with either kaolin clay or a naturally sensitive clay from Mud Creek, Ontario and Portland type 1 or type 3 cement. Undrained shear strength testing was measured with the Swedish fall cone and the miniature lab vane. Soil−cement mixtures developed shear strength of up to 60 kPa with sensitivities from 4 to 16 within a 7 d curing time. This paper reports lessons learned from the mixing, curing and testing of the sensitive material, as well as the results from a geotechnical centrifuge experiment examining retrogressive sensitive clay landslides.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in GeotechnicsSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207