Machine Learning–Based Organic Soil Classification Using Cone Penetrometer Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil classification methods currently rely on soil borings or cone/piezocone penetrometer tests (CPT/CPTu). Literature provides several methods that classify soils based on two parameters (typically tip resistance and friction sleeve/porewater pressure) obtained from CPTu data, defining a soil behavior type. However, these methods face challenges in reliably classifying certain soils, such as organic soils. Robust and complex analyses are required to classify organic soils accurately. In this study, a random forest (RF) based method is developed to predict the presence and depth of organic soils. The RF model utilized features from CPTu soundings including tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore pressure. The true location of organic soils, derived from index properties obtained from soil borings, served as the model’s outputs. Unseen CPTu data was used to predict organic soils throughout the entire project alignment, serving as validation for the model. The model achieved an F1 score of 0.89. Settlement analyses were conducted to evaluate the practical implications of the model’s predictions on levee fill costs. The RF-based model yielded settlement predictions that closely matched those obtained through boring predictions. In contrast, traditional classification methods underestimated settlements, resulting in lower estimates for levee fill costs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".