MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308447721 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.170520

The Estimation of One-Dimensional Collapse for Highly Gypseous Soils

2022· article· en· W4308447721 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marwah T. Al-Mukhtar, Ahmed A. H. Al-Obaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterEnvironmental scienceEstimationGeologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringSoil scienceSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of gypsum in soils has a notable impact on their engineering properties.Since the gypsum dissolved due to water percolation, their properties may change over time.Collapsibility is considered the most significant parameter ruling the characteristics of highly gypseous soils for several decades; standards have tried to find the best formula for expressing the amount of strain in collapsing soils.Starting from the single and double odometer test, coming to the one-dimensional collapse.In this research 21, highly gypseous soil samples were prepared and tested according to three different standards.For different densities, the results indicate that collapse potential values obtained from the single oedometer method are quite similar to those using the double oedometer test under different conditions.Furthermore, the collapse strain estimated by the onedimensional collapse test gives different values due to the variety of applied pressure at wetting under different conditions.Also, the amount of gypsum dissolved during the tests indicates that the expression of the quantum of collapsibility of gypseous soils (strain) is more satisfactory than the qualitative declaration adopted by the version of the old method.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207