Synthesis of quality control procedures in the conduct of precision testing of standard soil mixes
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
Geotechnical index property test inputs are very important in foundation design in terms of soil classification and settlement calculations. It is therefore crucial to have accurate and reliable parameters for more reliable and safer foundation design. In this research, Six Sigma and House of Quality were utilized and incorporated in the inter laboratory study (ILS) precision testing of standard soil mixes of Ottawa sand, Bentonite and manufactured sand. Specific Gravity tests, Sieve Analysis, Liquid Limit Test and Plastic Limit Test were conducted by Six (6) participating laboratories, including the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Bureau of Research and Standards laboratory. The conduct of the ILS shows that for the soil tests, only sieve analysis produced good repeatability and reproducibility values. Both Specific Gravity Test and Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Tests showed high r and R values. To rectify this, the observed probable sources of errors during the conduct of the ILS were identified and quality control measures were employed for a retest conducted in a single laboratory. Retest results fell within the acceptable range of two results specifications of ASTM. Therefore, the quality control measures and procedures employed in the retest and ASTM precision statements were recommended to be followed for the proposed diagnostic testing for the DPWH Private Laboratory Accreditation and for the proposed accreditation of laboratory technicians.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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