MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220781825 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0550

Localized behaviour of fluidized subgrade soil subjected to cyclic loading

2022· article· en· W4220781825 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Thanh Trung Nguyen, Buddhima Indraratna, Serge Leroueil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of Technology SydneyAustralian Government
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSubgradeMaterials scienceVoid ratioWater contentStiffnessSoil waterAtterberg limitsPore water pressureVoid (composites)Triaxial shear testCompactionGeologyComposite materialSoil scienceShear (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent investigations have shown that under adverse cyclic triaxial loading, the upper part of soil specimens can turn into a fluid-like state with increased water content (i.e., fluidization), whereas the lower layers can maintain a relatively high stiffness. This paper aims to gain further insight into this behaviour by monitoring the development in excess pore water pressure (EPWP) at the top and bottom of the test specimens, followed by post-analysis of water content distribution along the specimen. The results show that the EPWP at the uppermost part of the specimen develops rapidly and approaches the zero-effective stress level, whereas the EPWP at the bottom part of the specimen tends to stabilize while undergoing densification. Accompanied with this process is a redistribution of the water content along the specimen height where the water content at the upper soil layer increases to approach the liquid limit while increasing the void ratio.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207