Evaluation of state parameter interpretation methods using CPT calibration chamber data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cone penetration test (CPT) is widely used to determine the in situ state parameter of soils because it provides continuous data and excellent repeatability at a relatively low cost. Accurate interpretation of the state parameter from CPT is the basis for evaluating the strength of granular soils, including assessing liquefaction susceptibility in important structures such as tailings storage facilities. A few interpretation methods are used in practice. They use two different overburden stress normalisation schemes on tip resistance. These methods vary in how much information they utilise to differentiate among soils. This paper evaluates these methods by applying them to an extensive database of calibration chamber tests. Then, the state parameter interpreted by each method is compared with that determined from laboratory data. The database includes manufactured sands, natural sands, and clean sand tailings. The soils were selected such that both calibration chamber testing and triaxial compression data were available from the literature. This evaluation serves as a minimum requirement for applying these methods in engineering projects, especially those dealing with challenging soils such as fines-rich tailings. This study suggests that methods that account for soil properties and in situ horizontal stresses perform better than those that do not.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it