MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411609120 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0286

Use of rigid inclusions for foundations of container yards

2025· article· en· W4411609120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hao Chen, Shifan Wu, Stephen S Lim, Tiancheng Song, Jian Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYardContainer (type theory)Geotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringEngineeringGeologyCivil engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steel-reinforced concrete (RC) piles have traditionally been the main foundation type for container yards in Singapore. However, RC piles are difficult and expensive to be demolished when the port is used for redevelopment in the future. One solution to this problem is to use unreinforced rigid inclusions in lieu of RC piles. An innovative method involving rigid inclusions, a load transfer platform, and plinth beams has been proposed as the new foundation approach for container yards. A full-scale pilot test using this new foundation approach was conducted under various load conditions, and the results demonstrated that the proposed solution was effective. In addition to overcoming future demolition challenges, the new foundation approach was proved to be more cost-effective and quicker to construct as compared with the existing method. This paper presents the design concept and corresponding numerical simulations, which showed good agreement with the monitoring data from the pilot test.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207