Hierarchical Bayesian model for predicting small-strain stiffness of sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) that integrates the physical knowledge and the test data to predict the small-strain shear modulus Gmax for a target sand type. The limited target-specific data are combined with the abundant generic data through a hierarchical structure so that the variability of Gmax within one sand type and across different sand types can be captured. The hyperparameters that characterize the same underlying distribution of physical model parameters across all the sand types are first estimated from the abundant generic data. The model parameters for the new sand type are then updated as the limited site-specific data become available. The approach is illustrated using a generic database and two real examples not covered by the generic database. Multiple possible hierarchical models are compared in terms of model complexity and goodness-of-fit. The results show that the hierarchical modeling of small-strain shear modulus data is reasonable and necessary. The hierarchical model can provide less biased and more accurate predictions of Gmax compared to the commonly used complete pooling model, especially in cases where the site-specific data are quite different from the overall average of the generic database.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".