MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400248990 · doi:10.23967/isc.2024.175

Calibration Chamber Testing on Tailings for Interpretation of Partially Drained CPT

2024· article· en· W4400248990 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mason Ghafghazi, Lei Qi, Hang Zhao, Michael Etezad, John M. Sharp, Mark Talesnick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCalibrationTailingsEnvironmental scienceInterpretation (philosophy)Remote sensingComputer scienceGeologyMaterials sciencePhysicsMetallurgyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is the primary site investigation tool in silt-rich tailings. The permeability and compressibility range of tailings often puts the standard CPT penetration rate in the partial drainage range where the tip resistance, pore water pressure, and sleeve friction become functions of not only the state, but also drainage conditions. This makes interpretation of the state parameter, which represents liquefaction susceptibility and residual strength of tailings particularly challenging. It is not clear whether existing CPT interpretation frameworks are capable of accounting for effects of partial drainage. Developing field correlations for interpreting partially drained CPT data in tailings is hampered by spatial variability and sampling disturbance. CPT tests were performed in a calibration chamber and in the field on a gold tailings material. Dissipation tests were performed, and the pore water pressures on the cone at the u2 position were monitored. The degree of partial drainage was estimated based on the coefficient of consolidation inferred from these dissipation tests. Similarities and differences of the calibration chamber and field CPTs were discussed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207