MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391015085 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2023-0007

Influence of overconsolidation ratio on hydromechanical behaviour of unsaturated silty soil under various shearing rates

2024· article· en· W4391015085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shengshen Wu, Annan Zhou, Jie Li, Bisheng Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Universities Scientific Fund
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)GeologySiltGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the limited land resources in major cities, reclamation becomes an optimal option to solve this issue, unsaturated soil is often involved in these projects, and the hydro-mechanical behaviour of this type of soil significantly are affected by the stress history and time effect. In this study, the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) effect of unsaturated silt under different shearing rates was studied through a series of constant water content tests. The specimens were under an effective confining pressure of 400 kPa. The samples were unloaded to 100 kPa, and 50 kPa to achieve different values of OCRs (4 and 8). The samples with different OCRs were then dried from saturated state to initial suction = 100, 200, and 300 kPa via axis-translation, and then sheared at three different rates. The results show that higher strain rates led to a higher degree of saturation during shearing under different OCRs. The shear strength increased with increasing shearing rates while the maximum deviator stress decreased when OCR decreased. Higher OCRs resulted in larger volume change during shearing; similar behaviour was observed for increasing rates.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207