Towards reliable and effective site investigations
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
It is widely appreciated that, in civil engineering and building projects, the largest element of financial and technical risk usually lies in the ground. Almost exclusively, the scope of geotechnical investigations is governed not by what is needed to characterise the subsurface conditions appropriately but, rather, by how much the client and project manager are willing to spend. There is often little correlation between the variability of the ground and the scope of the investigation. This paper presents the results of a Monte Carlo simulation incorporating many 3D single-layer soil profiles with different statistical characteristics. A three-storey building founded on nine pad footings is used to assess the reliability of various site investigation scopes and test methods. The pad footings are designed on the basis of settlement, and are examined using 3D finite element analysis and Schmertmann's method. It is observed, as expected, that the likelihood of underdesigning or overdesigning a footing decreases as the scope of the investigation increases. The relationship between these likelihoods and the variability of the ground is presented.
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 | 0.000 | 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