MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406202892 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0611

Root–soil interface friction jointly amplified by high root density and shear deflection

2025· article· en· W4406202892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengkai Lv, Dongri Song

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDeflection (physics)Shear (geology)GeologyMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite materialPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant roots significantly enhance the stability of shallow slopes. However, the mechanism of the root–soil interaction at root-bundle scale remains unclear. The objective of this study is to reveal the factors that control root–soil interface frictional stress at root-bundle scale. Through theoretical analysis, it is clarified that spatiotemporal inhomogeneity exists in root–soil interface frictional stress, and it could be amplified by root density and root deflection angle. Large-scale shear tests with 160 and 10 mm shear zones were then conducted to verify this hypothesis, where variations in shear zone thicknesses corresponded to different shear deflections. The number of roots was measured within the sheared zone. Results reveal that the average root–soil interface frictional stress of rooted soils with 10 mm shear zone is 66% higher than that for rooted soils with 160 mm shear zone. During the shear process, the state of roots transitions from stretching to sliding, accompanied by increasing root–soil interface friction. This study confirms that root–soil interface frictional stress is jointly amplified by root density and root deflection angle, providing robust evidence for constructing physics-based mechanical reinforcement models.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207