MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392963747 · doi:10.1520/gtj20230363

Development of Tools for the Direct Measurement of Shear Stress and Shear Strain within a Soil Mass

2024· article· en· W4392963747 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Talesnick, Ichinur Omer, M. Ringel, Mason Ghafghazi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDirect shear testShear (geology)Shear stressGeologyStress–strain curveMaterials scienceDeformation (meteorology)Composite materialPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article describes the development of sensing tools designed and applied to the direct measurement of shear stresses and shear strain within a soil mass. The importance in the development of these tools is in their ability to measure shear stresses and shear distortions within soil without any a priori information of the stress and strains applied at the boundaries of the system. These tools may be applied to element testing, testing of physical models, and field applications. The sensors were used in the testing of a sand in a large simple shear apparatus, under both constant height and constant vertical pressure conditions. Testing demonstrated that shear stresses smaller than 0.1 kPa are easily resolved. Shear strains smaller than 10−5 (abs) were reliably measured. Measurement of shear stress and shear distortion within the soil mass allows for direct determination of the shear stiffness of the soil. Shear stiffness measured in this fashion is significantly greater than that determined from the globally measured shear stress and shear strain. The stiffness degradation curve illustrates a constant shear stiffness over the range of 10−5 through 5·10−4.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207