MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407905437 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-656-9-707

Evaluation of penetration tests and their correlations in gravelly soils

2005· book-chapter· en· W4407905437 on OpenAlex
Kulhawy Fred H., Chen Jie-Ru

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIOS Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterPenetration (warfare)Soil scienceGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All penetration tests are useful for site exploration and soil property characterization, but most have limited applicability in gravelly soils. In these soils, the following dynamic tests dominate: Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Large Penetration Test (LPT), and Becker Penetration Test (BPT). Although the SPT is most appropriate in sandy soils, it still is used in gravelly soils. To overcome this limitation, several large-scale penetration tests have been developed in the USA, Canada, Japan, and Italy, and they are categorized by configuration of the testing equipment into LPT and BPT. This paper surveys these tests and their basic procedures. Then correlations linking the SPT to the LPT and BPT are explored, resulting in design recommendations.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.214 · 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