MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007606266 · doi:10.1061/9780784482780.047

Experimental Investigation of Cement Mixing to Improve Lake Agassiz Clay

2020· article· en· W3007606266 on OpenAlex
Toshiyuki Himeno, Marolo Alfaro, Takenori Hino

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Congress 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementMixing (physics)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep mixing method (DMM) is a ground stabilization technique using lime or cement binders. The DMM has gained increasing applications to minimize ground settlements and increase stability to support structures. However, this ground improvement technique has not yet been used extensively in Manitoba. For the effective design of DMM, mixtures of cement, clay, and water that would produce optimal strength and stiffness are generally determined through laboratory tests. A total of 120 unconfined compression tests were conducted at different amounts of cement in the admixtures, water-cement ratio, and curing periods were conducted on Lake Agassiz clay frequently found in Manitoba. The results were compared with those of Champlain clay found in Ontario and Quebéc and Ariake clay in Japan where extensive data are available. This paper discusses the outcome of the comparison. It was found that the improvement effect of Lake Agassiz clay by DMM is an effective means to increase the strength.

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.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
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