MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392506147 · doi:10.1061/9780784485330.068

Characterization of Adfreeze Shear Behavior at the Interface of Frozen Clay Till and Steel Piles

2024· article· en· W4392506147 on OpenAlexaff
Joash Bryan Adajar, Marolo Alfaro, Lukas U. Arenson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of ManitobaBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringCharacterization (materials science)Shear (geology)GeologyDirect shear testMaterials scienceComposite materialNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frost heave of frost-susceptible soils in the active layer can produce uplift forces that can jack up pile foundations. One source of these uplift forces is the adfreeze stress that develops along the pile shaft. More accurate adfreeze stress values (both adfreeze shear strength and residual adfreeze stress) must be determined to properly consider them in pile design. This research utilized the direct shear test to characterize adfreeze stresses at frozen clay till and steel pile interface. The impacts of temperature, initial water content, and shear rate on adfreeze stresses were also evaluated. Both temperature and initial water content significantly affect adfreeze shear strength but have minimal impact on residual adfreeze stress. In contrast, the shear rate has a considerable impact on both. A wide range of adfreeze shear strength values were measured, ranging from 40 to 400 kPa, while residual adfreeze stresses are significantly lower, ranging from 15 to 60 kPa.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207