MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392103950 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48821-4_10

LEAP-ASIA-2019 Centrifuge Test at Kyoto University

2024· book-chapter· en· W4392103950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruben R. Vargas, Kyohei Ueda, Tetsuo Tobita

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeTest (biology)Environmental scienceGeologyNuclear physicsPaleontologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Liquefaction Experiments and Analysis Projects (LEAP) is an international collaborative project that aims to verify, validate, and quantify the uncertainty of numerical liquefaction models. “LEAP-ASIA-2019” is one of the LEAP’s exercises, whose main objectives are to validate the “generalized scaling law” for lateral spreading and to fill the gaps of experiments to complete the dataset obtained as part of the “LEAP-UCD-2017.” Within this project, a total of five models were developed at the geotechnical centrifuge of Kyoto University to simulate the dynamic behavior of a submerged, uniform-density, 20-m-long, 4-m-deep, and 5° sloping deposit of Ottawa F-65 sand. This paper presents the key features of the model preparation and testing process while also examining the applicability of the “generalized scaling law” for centrifuge modeling.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.009

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.147 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207