Determining Soil Plasticity Utilizing Manafi Method and Apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Soil plasticity is one of the essential index properties required for classifying soils in geotechnical engineering practice. Determination of plasticity properties of soils is also critical for correlation with their engineering properties such as shear strength, permeability, and compressibility. However, present standard test methods for soil plasticity suffer, to different extents, from operator-dependency and inconsistency. This study introduces a new technique utilizing a combined qualitative and quantitative approach for soil property determinations, namely the Manafi Method and Apparatus. The method is proposed as an alternative technique to determine the liquid and plastic limits of soils. The proposed technique is instrumented with a new soil extrusion device to quantify the workability of soils and is calibrated to translate the workability to their liquid and plastic limits. The method is applied to seven soils of varying particle sizes and plasticity to determine the liquid and plastic limits, and the results are compared with those obtained by the conventional methods. The outcomes suggest that the new technique provides a more precise and reliable means of soil plasticity determination in the studied samples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".