MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation for Soft Clayey Soils, Sediments, or Tailings Using Predictors Measured at High-Void Ratio

2020· article· en· W3045398717 on OpenAlexaff
Yagmur Babaoglu, Paul Simms

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoid ratioTailingsConsolidation (business)Hydraulic conductivityGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterCompressibilityVoid (composites)Tailings damSoil scienceClay soilGeologyEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMechanicsComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consolidation parameters are required to support the disposal management of soft soils or mine tailings. The estimation of these parameters from simple correlations using easily measured properties can be advantageous, and considerable work has been done on this topic. This paper proposes two innovations that advance this work: (1) hydraulic conductivity–void ratio (k-e) estimation can be substantially improved by using a single measured value at a high-void ratio, and (2) the compressibility curve itself can be a useful predictor of k-e. Using these findings, general equations are derived that describe k-e using a power law, where the power is either 4 or 5. Examining 79 k-e data sets from clays, clayey tailings, and dredged materials, 94% of all predicted k values are within an order of magnitude of measured k-e values. This level of accuracy, coupled with the advantage of anchoring the k-e function by a measured value at a high-void ratio, is shown to result in robust predictions of settlement in large strain consolidation analyses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207