Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Peat and organic soils cover about 6% of the landmass of Great Britain and Ireland as a whole, with Ireland and Scotland having percentages of 17% and 10%; extensive deposits are to be found in many other countries worldwide, such as Canada, Russia, Finland and Indonesia, to mention a few. Their engineering behaviour depends on their morphology, which must be reflected in the description and classification of soil and in turn must be included in the interpretation of geotechnical parameters. Water content is the most important index test and can be used to estimate some of the engineering properties. Other important indices are the loss on ignition and the degree of decomposition as indicated by the von Post scale. Secondary compression dominates when estimating settlements of peat and it is generally regarded that this occurs during the primary consolidation (hydrodynamic) phase as well as after dissipation of the excess pore pressure. Sophisticated soil models have been developed which reflect this continuous secondary compression; however, at present these are not readily used for routine design. Surcharging of peat is an effective method of reducing the long-term creep movements under embankments. The permeability of peat decreases significantly with compression and this affects the consolidation behaviour in the field. The laboratory-determined effective stress parameters of fibrous peats depend on the type of test and the orientation of the sample. The fibres also affect the in situ test methods used to determine the undrained shear strength, particularly the in situ vane which give cu values which are dependent on the size of the vane used. Laboratory tests also recorded relatively high cu/σv′ ratios. Critical design issues include the design and construction approach for roads, structures, slopes, canals and dykes founded in or with peats and organic soils.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".