MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179273600 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0034

Development and validation of a method to predict the soil thermal conductivity using thermal piezocone penetration testing (T-CPTU)

2021· article· en· W3179273600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoyan Liu, Surya Sarat Chandra Congress, Guojun Cai, Lulu Liu, Songyu Liu, Anand J. Puppala, Wenwei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGeothermal Energy Systems and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testThermal conductivityThermalThermal conductionSoil testPenetration (warfare)DissipationSoil waterMaterials scienceGeologyEngineeringSoil scienceThermodynamicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new in situ thermal piezocone penetration test (T-CPTU) system is developed to determine the thermal properties of soil. It is expected to overcome most of the shortcomings observed in existing in situ test techniques. Based on Fourier's heat conduction equation and pore pressure dissipation theoretical equation, a method for calculating the thermal conductivity, namely the predicted temperature method, was proposed. The accuracy of the T-CPTU probe testing process and thermal conductivity calculation results were verified by numerical simulation, laboratory large-scale model tank tests, and thermal needle tests. Finally, the field data of T-CPTUs at three sites in Nanjing, China, were collected and compared with the laboratory thermal needle tests. The results indicated that the thermal conductivities obtained using T-CPTU were accurate and closer to those of laboratory thermal needle tests for most soils. The thermal conductivities of the undisturbed soil samples measured in the laboratory were lower than those obtained by T-CPTU.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeothermal Energy Systems and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207