MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405737822 · doi:10.3390/geotechnics4040066

A Reassessment of Barron’s Classic Sand-Drain Theory Using a Coupled Hydraulic-Mechanical FEM Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405737822 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the findings presented by Barron (1948) have been corroborated by way of a hydraulic-mechanical coupled finite element analysis. Specifically, the FEM analysis was conducted using a poroelasticity approach in combination with a transient formulation that incorporates Darcy’s law. This study highlights the fact that variations in pore pressure dissipation between the coupled FEM analysis of this study and Barron’s theoretical analysis are minimal. The coupled FEM simulations confirm Barron’s conclusions that, as the well diameter ratio (n) increases, the rate of pore water pressure dissipation decreases. Ultimately, for design purposes, a stress field is also required and consequently, a coupled FEM analysis is necessary. On this basis, results indicate high shear stress concentrations near the upper and lower boundaries, while the mean effective stress decreases from the well bore boundary.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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