MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191984405

Evaluation of liquefaction potential at a silt site in providence, Rhode Island

2007· article· en· W3191984405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron S. Bradshaw, R. A. Green, Christopher D. P. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Media Literacy Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionGeologySiltGeotechnical engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Geomorphology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent geological, seismological and paleoseismological studies in the northeastern United States provide important clues regarding past occurrences of soil liquefaction in this region and, hence, highlight the future potential for liquefaction. Assessing liquefaction potential in the Providence, Rhode Island, area is complicated because of the uncertainty in the seismic ground motions as well as the uncertainty of the cyclic resistance of the silts that underlie the city. To provide insight on this issue, a deterministic evaluation of liquefaction potential at a study site in Providence using a cyclic stress-based approach was presented. The CSR was estimated for two earthquake scenarios. These scenarios corresponded to the two predominant modal events identified in the deaggragation matrices obtained from the USGS for the 2,500-year spectral accelerations for oscillator periods closest to the fundamental period of the site. The two scenarios considered were a small event (M5.4) occurring locally, and a large event (M7.4) originating from the Charlevoix Seismic Zone, Canada. The CRR of the silt at the study site was evaluated using empirical correlations based on SPT blow count, CPT tip resistance and in-situ shear wave velocity. The shear wave velocity correlation used in the analysis was developed from an extensive laboratory study 9 using the silt recovered from the study site. A comparison of the CRRs resulting from the three correlations suggests that the SPT-based method gave the lowest predictions, while the CPT-based method provided the highest resolution with depth. Comparing the CSR and CRR predictions indicate that there is a low potential for liquefaction at the study site. However, given that the results depend to a large extent on the site characteristics, this finding is only applicable to the study site. This narrow finding further reinforces the need to perform site-specific evaluations of liquefaction potential for a given project.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Media Literacy EducationSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207