Probabilistic Classification of Near-Surface Shallow-Water Sediments Using a Portable Free-Fall Penetrometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geotechnical evaluation of seabed sediments is important for engineering projects and naval applications, offering valuable insights into sediment properties, behavior, and strength. Obtaining high-quality seabed samples can be a challenging task, making in situ testing an essential part of site characterization. Free-fall penetrometers (FFPs) are robust tools for rapidly profiling seabed surface sediments, even in energetic nearshore or estuarine conditions and shallow as well as deep depths. Although methods for interpretation of traditional offshore cone penetration testing (CPT) data are well-established, their adaptation to FFP data is still an area of research. This study introduces an innovative approach that utilizes machine learning algorithms to create a sediment behavior classification system based on portable free-fall penetrometer (PFFP) data. The proposed model leverages PFFP measurements obtained from multiple locations, such as Sequim Bay (Washington), the Potomac River, and the York River (Virginia). The results show 91.1% accuracy in the class prediction, with the classes representing cohesionless sediment with little to no plasticity (Class 1), cohesionless sediment with some plasticity (Class 2), cohesive sediment with low plasticity (Class 3), and cohesive sediment with high plasticity (Class 4). The model prediction not only predicts classes but also yields an estimate of inherent uncertainty associated with the prediction, which can provide valuable insight into different sediment behaviors. Lower uncertainties are more common, but they can increase significantly depending on variations in sediment composition, environmental conditions, and operational techniques. By quantifying uncertainty, the model offers a more comprehensive and informed approach to sediment classification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".