MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409533479 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0811

Laboratory scale column penetration tests for deep mixing purposes

2025· article· en· W4409533479 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sølve Hov, Edvin Moe, Guro Holte Haraldsen, Priscilla Paniagua, Stefan Larsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrafikverketNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPenetration (warfare)GeologyColumn (typography)Penetration testScale (ratio)Mixing (physics)Forensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strength verification of dry deep mixed columns is almost exclusively performed by column penetration tests (KPS) using a probe with two wings shearing into the column. Guidelines specify a constant bearing capacity factor ( N KPS ) of 10 to determine the shear strength of the column. This factor has, however, undergone little research, and there are considerable research gaps. Results from laboratory scale tests are presented herein, where cement-improved kaolin columns with three different strengths were tested with KPS and cone penetration tests (CPT). The results showed N KPS ranging from 7.3 to 7.8 at low degrees of confinement around the columns, up to 15.4–16.5 at high degrees of confinement. The column strength did not significantly affect N KPS . The results further indicates that extraction to penetration ratio can be used to predict N KPS . Equivalent bearing capacity factors for CPT were 5.4–7.8 for tests only performed in low degrees of confinement. The findings present new knowledge that degree of confinement is crucial for N KPS , which has important practical implications, particularly that current guidelines oversimplify and might yield unconservative column strengths with increased risk of failure.

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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207