MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007655245 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0416

Characterizing site investigation performance in a two layer soil profile

2020· article· en· W3007655245 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael P. Crisp, Mark B. Jaksa, Y.L. Kuo, Gordon A. Fenton, D. V. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodSoil waterSoil horizonBoreholeEnvironmental scienceStiffnessBoundary (topology)PileSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringRange (aeronautics)GeologyBoundary layerStatisticsStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insufficient or inappropriate soil testing can lead to a range of undesirable consequences, and yet there is no guideline for optimal investigation. This study analyses the influence of a two layer, virtual soil profile with an undulating boundary on site investigation performance. Factors investigated include the method of representing the boundary within the soil model, the stiffness ratio of the two layers, choice of test type, the pile length relative to the boundary length, and the number of boreholes and piles. The relative error contribution from the uncertainty sources of layer geology and soil variability is also examined. Investigation performance is assessed through Monte Carlo analysis in terms of total expected project cost, while implicitly incorporating the risk of damage from poor investigation. It has been shown that the optimal investigation can save in the order of AUD$1.5 million and that 2D soil models can represent 3D soils.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207