MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403709805 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2024-0077

Characterising the permanent deformation of subgrade soils under seasonal variation

2024· article· en· W4403709805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
José H. C. Everton, Sigurður Erlingsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrafikverket
KeywordsSubgradeGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterDeformation (meteorology)GeologyVariation (astronomy)SeasonalityEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rutting, a prevalent failure mode in flexible pavements, largely stems from subgrade issues. Despite this, there is a lack of standard protocols to evaluate subgrade rutting or permanent deformation (PD). This study attempted to characterise PD in subgrades, focusing on a poorly graded sand and two silty sands. Moisture contents above and below optimum levels were considered to account for seasonal variations. The research involved adapting a test to assess the PD by determining typical stresses on the subgrade. Moreover, given these soils’ unsaturated state and medium- to fine-grained nature, suction is an important factor. Suction-controlled multi-stage repeated load triaxial tests were conducted, and the results were fitted by a PD model modified to account for suction. The characterisation was compared with the subgrade strain criterion used in pavement design solutions. Results indicated discrepancies between the PD characterisation and strain criteria predictions, with the silty sands performing better than the poorly graded sand, consistent with the shakedown theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→