MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031644349 · doi:10.1520/gtj20180205

Piezoelectric Ring-Actuator Technique: In-Depth Scrutiny of Interpretation Method

2020· article· en· W3031644349 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud N. Hussien, Mourad Karray

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyGeotechnical engineeringInterpretation (philosophy)ActuatorGeologyPiezoelectricityRing (chemistry)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer scienceComposite materialLawElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The piezoelectric ring-actuator technique (P-RAT) is a recent laboratory technique for the measurement of shear wave velocity (Vs) of soils. The measurement is based on transmission of a mechanical signal through the soil specimen with source and receiver transducers capsulated, for instance, in the end platens of an oedometer cell. An interpretative framework of the signals produced in the P-RAT has also been developed to minimize the subjectivity of the process and provide a consistent approach to Vs determination. However, there are some issues that would potentially affect the quality of the signals; consequently, biases of the velocity determination have not yet been explicitly discussed, such as the effects of sample and sensor characteristics as well as the signals used to excite the P-RAT sensors. P-RAT experiments on two different soils using different sensors, input signals, and oedometer cells are implemented in this study. The main purpose of the tests is not to elicit definitive information about the tested materials but to allow the P-RAT interpretation methodology to be revealed. The results suggest that this interpretation method can be beneficially used with other piezoelectric techniques (e.g., BE).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207