Application of two analytical CPTU solutions to sensitive clay in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent series of CPTU soundings in sensitive clay at the Louiseville Quebec test site has been published, allowing for the application of two closed-form analytical solutions based on: (1) effective stress limit plasticity and (2) hybrid cavity expansion-critical state methods. These are used for geoparameter interpretations including: effective stress friction angle, undrained shear strength, yield stress ratio, undrained rigidity index, and the coefficient of consolidation. Profiles of these soil parameters are compared with the benchmark values obtained from available series of previous and present laboratory testing programs at this site, including index testing, triaxial compression, and one-dimensional consolidation. Piezocone dissipation tests are used to assess the coefficient of consolidation which are validated by pressuremeter holding tests and lab oedometer tests. An empirical CPTU screening method identifies the Louiseville site as underlain by sensitive clay, versus a regular insensitive clay deposit, whereas soil behavior type charts using Q-F-Bq indicate the soils are either silt (zone 4) or regular clay (zone 3). The alternate screening method is verified by field vane and laboratory fall cone that show the clay is in fact sensitive (average St ≈ 22).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".