MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225137498 · doi:10.11159/icgre22.118

Correlation between Shear Wave Velocity and Cone Penetration Test Data in Offshore Carbonate Soils

2022· article· en· W4225137498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Bilal Mumtaz, Dhirendra Kumar, Luke Martin, Yassine Benboudiaf

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone penetration testSubmarine pipelineGeologyPenetration (warfare)CarbonateShear (geology)Soil waterGeotechnical engineeringSeismologySoil scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and cone penetration testing data in soils may be used to predict shear wave velocity in absence of direct measurements.However, existing correlations in the geotechnical literature were usually developed based on data from silica soils.These correlations may lead to poor predictions in carbonate soils.This paper investigates correlations between shear wave velocity and cone penetration test data for carbonate soils.Data from site investigation campaigns at 22 different borehole locations within an offshore field in the Arabian Gulf were examined.The soils at these borehole locations are high in carbonate contents.Based on regression analysis, a correlation to estimate shear wave velocity as a function of cone tip resistance is proposed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207