MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390768477 · doi:10.3390/w16020232

Prediction of Internal Erosion Parameters of Clay Soils Using Initial Physical Properties

2024· article· en· W4390768477 on OpenAlexaff
Mousa Attom, Ramesh Vandanapu, Zahid Khan, Mohammad Yamin, Philip Virgil Astillo, Ahmed Eltayeb, Ahmed Khalil

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsAecom (Canada)
FundersAmerican University of Sharjah
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)Soil waterGeotechnical engineeringShear (geology)Water contentDirect shear testAtterberg limitsErosionInternal frictionSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to predict the internal erosion rate index and critical shear of soils based on the initial physical properties of soils. Regression statistical analyses were employed on sixteen types of clayey soils prepared at different initial dry densities and water contents. The Hole Erosion test was conducted to determine the internal erosion parameters: the erosion rate index and the critical shear. Another set of specimens with the same initial dry unit weight and water content was remolded in the direct shear box and tested using the direct shear test to determine the shear strength parameters (i.e., the cohesion and the angle of internal friction). The various physical properties of soil (initial dry unit weight, initial water content, plastic index, liquid limit, optimum water content, maximum dry density, cohesion, and angle of internal friction) were used to develop models that predict both the erosion rate index and the critical shear. The findings show that the initial physical properties can be used to predict the erosion rate index and the critical shear. The coefficient of determination (R2) was found to be between 0.83 and 0.92 to predict the erosion rate index and between 0.85 and 0.9 to predict the critical shear. The high R2 implies that the models can be used to rate the soil erodibility in advance based on simple laboratory testing instead of time-consuming tests. Additionally, the findings give varied options for prediction depending on the availability of the soil initial physical properties.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207