MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410949323 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0207

On the influence of the sample preparation method on the undrained monotonic and cyclic response of Malaysian kaolin

2025· article· en· W4410949323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elvis Covilla-Valera, David Maš́ın, J. Duque, Jan Najser, Jakub Roháč

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringMonotonic functionGeologySample (material)Materials scienceMathematicsChemistryMathematical analysisChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article experimentally evaluates the influence of the sample preparation method on the undrained monotonic and cyclic response of a saturated Malaysian kaolin. Two different sample preparation methods were adopted: slurry consolidation and moist compaction. The results of undrained monotonic triaxial tests showed the same critical state friction angle regardless of the sample preparation method and overconsolidation ratio. Under undrained cyclic loading, the well-known reduction in the number of cycles required to reach failure conditions with increasing cyclic stress ratios was evident regardless of the sample preparation method. However, important qualitative differences were observed depending on the sample preparation method, such as the degree of inherent anisotropy manifested in terms of the inclination of the effective stress paths, and the asymmetric vertical strain accumulation in the stress–strain space. The reasons for the observed differences in behavior are analyzed and discussed in the manuscript.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207