MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297184370 · doi:10.1520/gtj20220093

Discussion of “Determining Soil Plasticity Utilizing Manafi Method and Apparatus” by Masoud S. G. Manafi, An Deng, Abbas Taheri, Mark B. Jaksa, and Nagaraj HB, published in <i>Geotechnical Testing Journal</i> 45, no. 4 (2022): 797–818

2022· article· en· W4297184370 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtterberg limitsGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterPlasticitySoil testClay soilMathematicsSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The authors presented an extrusion-based technique, which, they reported, can be used to quantify the workability of fine-grained soils. They also presented the calibration of a soil extrusion device to translate their “workability parameter” to the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) states, i.e., employing the so-called Manafi method for this purpose. The discussers contend that, when considering a wide range of different fine-grained soils, the authors’ proposed method is not appropriate for determination of the Atterberg PL. With toughness and workability being essentially synonymous, and with soil toughness at the Atterberg PL being variable between different soils (differing significantly when considering a diverse range of fine-grained soil classes), it follows that the work done in remolding these soils, or to cause extrusion of these soils, can also vary (and may differ significantly) at their Atterberg PL water contents. The discussers’ reanalysis of the authors’ data, presented for only seven test soils (all of them clay), also reveals a relatively narrow range of remolding toughness (of between 31.2 and 51.5 kJ/m3) at their Atterberg PL water contents. It is argued that the “workability”-based criterion of the Manafi method, with the authors assigning a fixed “calibrated workability” value of 86.3 J/s for Atterberg PL determinations employing their presented extrusion apparatus, is fundamentally not correct; rather, the Manafi method PL and the Atterberg PL are essentially different index parameters. It is contended that what the authors call “workability” (i.e., their “workability parameter” with units of J/s) is actually not really workability but seemingly rather an alternative assessment of undrained shear strength. Importantly, the Atterberg PL is identified based on the crumbling condition of the soil thread (i.e., it is not energy-based, nor is it related to the work done) during the standardized rolling-out procedure. For the LL, the authors’ extrusion-type method, measuring more a sort of undrained shear strength, could produce good agreement between the Manafi method LL and the measured standard fall-cone LL because the latter is strength-based.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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