Assessment of reclamation-induced consolidation settlement considering stratigraphic uncertainty and spatial variability of soil properties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consolidation analysis is a key task for reclamation design. Although consolidation is a long-term process, acceleration of consolidation is often preferred for speeding up the reclamations. Before proposing measures to accelerate the consolidation and reclamation process, it is imperative to have an accurate prediction of consolidation settlement for fine-grained materials, which is greatly affected by spatial distribution of subsurface zones with different soil types (i.e., stratigraphic heterogeneities and uncertainty) and spatial variability of soil properties. In current practice, calculation of consolidation settlement often uses simplified stratigraphic boundaries and deterministic consolidation parameters without considering stratigraphic uncertainty or soil property spatial variability. The oversimplified practice might result in unconservative estimations of consolidation settlement and pose threats to safety and serviceability of constructed facilities on reclaimed lands. In this study, a stochastic framework is proposed for consolidation settlement assessment with explicit modeling of stratigraphic uncertainty and spatial variability of soil properties by machine learning and random field simulation from limited site investigation data. Performance of the proposed framework is demonstrated using an illustrative example. Results indicate that the proposed method effectively generates multiple realizations of geological cross section and random field samples of geotechnical properties from limited measurements and offers valuable insights into spatial distribution of the estimated total primary consolidation settlement curves and angular distortion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it