MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217285627 · doi:10.28927/sr.2021.073721

Experimental evaluation of the classical and alternative consolidation theories in predicting the volumetric change of contaminated and non-contaminated soil

2021· article· en· W3217285627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Moisés Antônio da Costa Lemos, Lucas M. Guimarães, André Luís Brasil Cavalcante

Bibliographic record

VenueSoils and Rocks · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Hydraulic conductivityPermeameterGeotechnical engineeringAtterberg limitsSoil waterSoil scienceOedometer testGeologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several regions in Brazil and the world suffer from the presence of collapsible soils. The development of theories for understanding the phenomenon is significant because the increase of water content is associated with several reasons (e.g., precipitation, rupture of sewage, and water systems). Although some theories explain the behavior of various types of soils, they fail to explain collapsible and structured soils. In this research, an alternative interpretation of the consolidation theory is verified and calibrated for collapsible soil. The alternative model was applied to experimental data from a latosol from southeastern Brazil, and comparisons with the classical theory showed a difference in the saturated hydraulic conductivity of around 100 times. The observation showed promising results compared with the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the field (Guelph Permeameter). Furthermore, consolidation tests verified the collapse potential, the variation of consolidation coefficient and saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the total settlement prevision due to the presence of bleach and washing powder.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoils and RocksSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207