MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146547035 · doi:10.3390/geosciences11040151

Verification of the Fredlund (2019) Unsaturated Shear Strength Function

2021· article· en· W3146547035 on OpenAlexaff
Thi Phuong An Tran, D. G. Fredlund

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringShear strength (soil)Shear (geology)Degree of saturationSoil waterSaturation (graph theory)MathematicsGeologyMaterials scienceSoil scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a proliferation of equations proposed to describe the unsaturated shear strength envelope going back to the 1970s. However, there have been limited studies to verify the suitability of one unsaturated shear strength equation over another. Most proposed shear strength equations have attempted to relate the shear strength of an unsaturated soil to some aspect(s) of the soil–water characteristic curve (SWCC). Estimation procedures have generally focused on using that of air-entry value (AEV) as defined by the drying (or desorption) branch of the degree of saturation SWCC (S-SWCC). This paper studies the suitability of using two “anchor points” (or reference points) along the drying S-SWCC to estimate the unsaturated soil shear strength function. The anchor points referred to are the air-entry value (AEV) of the soil and the “residual suction point” of the soil defined in terms of the S-SWCC. Shear strength conditions associated with both so-called anchor points are used as “boundary conditions” that should be satisfied when estimating the shear strength function for unsaturated soils. Past research laboratory measurements published in the research literature are used as part of the verification process for this study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207