MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388817500 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2023-0187

Case study: 3D mobilized strength of compacted fill

2023· article· en· W4388817500 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abedalqader Idries, Timothy D. Stark, Lucia Moya, Jiale Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringStrength reductionInfiltration (HVAC)SofteningSlope stabilityShear strength (soil)GeologySafety factorMaterials scienceSoil waterEngineeringComposite materialStructural engineeringFinite element methodSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water infiltration can cause softening of compacted structural fill and a reduction of the shear strength from the peak compacted strength to the fully softened strength (FSS) with an accompanying reduction in drained factor of safety (FoS). This study presents two-dimensional (2D) and 3D stability analyses of a compacted fill slope failure that occurred 6 years after construction due to water leaking from a connection between the main and lateral water pipes in the water supply system. The compacted fill material primarily consists of high plasticity fine-grained soil. The 3D FoS at the end of construction is 2.44 using the peak compacted strength envelope. However, the 3D FoS is close to unity (1.0) when the FSS is assigned to the compacted fill material with the appropriate piezometric surface, which means the 2 H:1 V compacted fill slope softened to the FSS within 6 years. This is an interesting FSS case because the failure surface is 4 m deep and semi-circular, which differs from infiltration cases that exhibit a shallower and more planar surface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207