Soil shrinkage and consolidation study on flood embankments in swamp irrigation areas
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in this paper discusses shrinking and consolidation of flood embankments soil in swamp irrigation areas. The flood embankments are made from swampy soil materials. The focus of this research is the reduction of dyke embankment height that occurs due to soil shrinkage and soil consolidation. Investigations about the time of consolidation and land subsidence that occurred on the embankment at certain periods after the embankment established were also carried out in this study. The research sites are some swamp irrigation areas in the Tulang Bawang Watershed, around North-East Lampung, Indonesia. This research was carried out by conducting laboratory tests on soil samples and field observations on the reduction in height of flood embankments in the study area. The research shows that the main cause of total decrease on the embankment is due to linear shrinkage, consolidation of soil under the embankment, an immediate subsidence, and the subsidence of the embankment themselves. Their contribution to total decrease of embankment is 42.51%, 34.48%, 18.32%, and 4.62%, respectively. Results also indicate that the ratio between the percentage of embankment consolidation in downstream area happen faster than the one in upstream area of the river.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".