MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400829594 · doi:10.1144/qjegh2024-036

The influence of earthworks construction on porewater pressures in clays and mudstones of the Lias Group

2024· article· en· W4400829594 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Briggs, Yuderka Trinidad González, Gerrit Meijer, Andrew Ridley, William Powrie, Simon Butler, Nick Sartain

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNewcastle UniversityRoyal Academy of Engineering
KeywordsEarthworksGeologyPore water pressureGroup (periodic table)Geotechnical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring the changes in porewater pressure associated with the construction of earthworks can yield information on the stiffness and permeability of the ground, as well as how the natural groundwater regime might be impacted. This paper presents 3 years of porewater pressure measurements in weathered Lias Group mudstone, obtained from a trial cutting and a trial embankment constructed for the UK's High Speed Two (HS2) railway. The immediate changes in porewater pressure were small in relation to the changes in total stress imposed. This can be explained by the consolidation or swelling during the period of construction, combined with the sensitivity of very stiff clays and mudstones to a very small (0.5%) reduction in the degree of saturation. In the longer term, porewater pressures reduced across the site owing to the reduction in ground level at the trial cutting. Rates of porewater pressure change were accelerated by more permeable limestone within the ground profile reducing drainage path lengths. It was concluded that construction-induced porewater pressure changes may be smaller, and their rate of dissipation more rapid, in weathered clays and mudstones such as those of the Lias Group than in younger, more compressible clay deposits.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and HydrogeologySame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207