Variabilite des resultats d'essais oedometriques sur l'argile molle de Guiche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is general agreement that the results of a laboratory test represent the behaviour of the test sample, which implies that the test procedure will give a single result for a given sample. As it is not possible to perform the same test several times on the same sample, the repeatability of the test procedure cannot be investigated directly. With samples which are manufactured in the laboratory prior to the test, repeatability tests can be conducted for the entire test procedure ; however the situation is different for natural soil samples as it is not possible to be certain that all parts of the core sample are identical, or that they were not subjected to varying degrees of disturbance during extraction. This paper analyzes the results of tests conducted at the LCPC on core samples of soft clay from Guiche (Adour Valley). Sixteen staged loading oedometer tests were conducted on samples cut from a block 20 cm in diameter and 10 cm in height, taken using a Laval piston sampler. This provided a valuable database for characterizing the variations in the test results for samples which are in principle very similar. The study investigated the variability of all compressibility and consolidation parameters (initial voids content, swelling, compression and creep indices, initial permeability coefficient and rate of change of the permeability coefficient) and indicated that the variability of these parameters within the blockwas fairly small, which means that the repeatability of the oedometer test procedure is good.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".