MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391143233 · doi:10.1520/gtj20230349

On the Outflow Boundary Opening Size for Internal Erosion Testing of Widely Graded Sand and Gravel

2024· article· en· W4391143233 on OpenAlexafffund
Ganapathiraman Vinoth, R. J. Fannin

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia Graduate SchoolNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBC Hydro
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringOutflowGradationPermeameterInternal erosionGeologyErosionBoundary (topology)Soil waterSoil scienceMathematicsGeomorphologyHydraulic conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Permeameter testing of a widely graded soil to evaluate its potential for internal instability requires the opening size of the outflow boundary to allow unstable finer fraction particles to pass while retaining the stable coarser fraction. Results from a parametric study, on three widely graded soils and five outflow boundaries, yielded paired-data for opening size Om and d85,e of eroded soil mass passing through the outflow boundary. Gradation shape analysis established d85′ of the finer fraction of each soil used in testing. An opening size ratio 5 ≤ Om/d85′ ≤ 10 correlates with a grain size ratio 1 ≤ d85,e/d85′ ≤ 2 and thus an eroded soil mass believed representative of the finer fraction of the widely graded soil. The novel Om/d85′ criterion for sizing the outflow boundary in permeameter testing is found consistent with an alternate criterion using concepts of base-filter incompatibility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.248
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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207