MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360614184 · doi:10.1061/9780784484685.049

Geotextile Filter Design Using Pore Size Distribution

2023· article· en· W4360614184 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Sack, Joel Sprague, J. R. Kuhn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsSolmax (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotextileFilter (signal processing)Materials scienceComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current geotextile filter design methodologies rely on geotextile apparent opening size (AOS) measurements obtained from ASTM D 4751. Even though a typical geotextile sample has a range of opening sizes, the current standard of practice is to use ASTM D4751 to obtain a single AOS value that is used for filter design of soils with a wide range of particle sizes. The AOS is a property of the geotextile that indicates the approximate largest particle that would effectively pass through the geotextile. It is also commonly referred to as the O95 of the geotextile. In recent years, geotextile pore size distribution (PSD) is being obtained in accordance with ASTM D6767. PSD results yield a spectrum of opening sizes that represent a geotextile’s ability to retain soil particles, as opposed to a single “largest opening size” value that is obtained from AOS testing per ASTM D4751. A new geotextile filter design method using multiple retention criteria has been created through a synthesis of the existing body of knowledge combined with laboratory testing to validate the new design methodology.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207