MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360614257 · doi:10.1061/9780784484678.011

Towards Implementing SCPTu Geotechnical Design Guidelines for the State of Illinois

2023· article· en· W4360614257 on OpenAlexaff
Cody Arnold, Jorge Macedo, Paul W. Mayne, Luis Vergaray, Yumeng Zhao, Sheng Dai, Lina Pua, Bruce Miller, Brian Laningham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsConetec Investigations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone penetration testGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testStandard penetration testEngineeringGeotechnical investigationPermeameterPore water pressureStiffnessCivil engineeringSoil waterGeologyHydraulic conductivityStructural engineeringSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cone penetration test (CPT) is widely used in geotechnical engineering for subsurface soil characterization due to its nearly continuous profiling, expediency, and repeatability, which are difficult to match with drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing, or other subsurface characterization techniques such as the standard penetration testing (SPT). In addition to obtaining the cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore water pressure, the seismic piezocone penetration test (SCPTu) also provides measurements of shear wave velocities with depth. A series of SCPTu soundings have been completed at several strategic Illinois test locations to characterize the particular response of Illinois soils in terms of stress history, strength, compressibility, stiffness, organic content, and hydraulic properties. Additionally, since the current geotechnical engineering practice in Illinois has a heavy reliance upon the SPT, an evaluation of correlations between paired sets of SCPTu readings and SPT blow counts corrected for energy efficiencies was made at a selected location. The findings of this research will be incorporated into the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) geotechnical manual through the development of guidelines for using CPT in the state of Illinois. This effort is geared towards expanding the use of CPT in IDOT practice allowing for higher quality subsurface data that can reduce design costs while increasing sustainability and reducing risk.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207