A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Techniques and Applications in Soil Improvement Using Green Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to an extensive evaluation of published studies, there is a shortage of research on systematic literature reviews related to machine learning prediction techniques and methodologies in soil improvement using green materials. A literature review suggests that machine learning algorithms are effective at predicting various soil characteristics, including compressive strength, deformations, bearing capacity, California bearing ratio, compaction performance, stress–strain behavior, geotextile pullout strength behavior, and soil classification. The current study aims to comprehensively evaluate recent breakthroughs in machine learning algorithms for soil improvement using a systematic procedure known as PRISMA and meta-analysis. Relevant databases, including Web of Science, ScienceDirect, IEEE, and SCOPUS, were utilized, and the chosen papers were categorized based on: the approach and method employed, year of publication, authors, journals and conferences, research goals, findings and results, and solution and modeling. The review results will advance the understanding of civil and geotechnical designers and practitioners in integrating data for most geotechnical engineering problems. Additionally, the approaches covered in this research will assist geotechnical practitioners in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of artificial intelligence algorithms compared to other traditional mathematical modeling techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".