Coupling Geotechnical Numerical Analysis with Machine Learning for Observational Method Projects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In observational method projects in geotechnical engineering, the final geotechnical design is decided upon during actual construction, depending on the observed behavior of the ground. Hence, engineers must be prepared to make crucial decisions promptly, with few available guidelines. In this paper, we propose coupling numerical analysis with machine learning (ML) algorithms for enhancing the decision process in observational method projects. The proposed methodology consists of two main computational steps: (1) data generation, where multiple numerical models are automatically generated according to the anticipated range of input parameters, and (2) data analysis, where input parameters and model results are analyzed with ML models. Using the case study of the Semel tunnel in Tel Aviv, Israel, we demonstrate how this computational process can contribute to the success of observational method projects through (1) the computation of feature importance, which can assist with better identifying the key features that drive failure prior to project execution, (2) providing insights regarding the monitoring plan, as correlative relationships between various results can be tested, and (3) instantaneous predictions during construction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it