MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407995955 · doi:10.1061/9780784486016.006

Simulation of CPT Points and Empirical Settlement Using Simulated CPT Points with Kronecker-Product Gaussian Process Regression Approach

2025· article· en· W4407995955 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Mack, Seok Hyeon Chai, Sina Javankhoshdel, Thamer Yacoub, Jianye Ching

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsRocscience (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaussian processKronecker productComputer scienceProcess (computing)RegressionProduct (mathematics)Regression analysisKronecker deltaAlgorithmStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsGaussianMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an application of data-driven Cone Penetration Test (CPT) simulations to computing empirical settlement is proposed. The paper utilizes three-dimensional (3D) random field generation of cone tip resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and porewater pressure (u2). The parameters simulated are spatially variable, with correlation lengths simulated in the horizontal and vertical directions produced based on the probabilistic sampling. The simulation of these parameters is conditioned on known data within a geotechnical site. This is done by integrating a Gaussian-process-regression (GPR) trend model with a Kronecker-product sparse Bayesian learning (SBL) algorithm. The approach produces many simulated test values at unknown locations, and this data is aggregated to provide information about estimated settlement at that location using the empirical Schmertmann method. By structuring the 3D output space into field grid points, we can generate a simulated settlement profile over an area of the site. This novel approach allows engineers in practice to see fine-grained settlement details based on only a few CPT field tests, for which hundreds of tests would have necessarily been conducted before. An example is included which uses the outlined method to simulate settlement across many field grid points in a site, highlighting the method’s efficiency compared to layer construction based on average SBT values which is found in practice.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207