MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411674040 · doi:10.37308/dfieffc25.1650101

US vs EU codes

2025· article· en· W4411674040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bengt H. Fellenius

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forthcoming update of the US AASHTO Specs will agree with the Canadian building code and the US Corps of Engineers code in regard to the analysis and design of piled foundations. Case histories on observations on full-scale piled rafts are reviewed and show that the response of interior and perimeter piles differ. Single piles and perimeter piles engage the soil from the ground downward. In contrast, interior piles engage the soil from the pile toe level upward. Interior piles and soil have strain compatibility, which determines the distribution of load between the piles, the raft contact stress, and the load-transfer movement. Particularly so in subsiding environment, because perimeter piles are subjected to downdrag and drag forces, while neither downdrag nor drag force will affect the interior piles to any appreciable degree. The difference will affect the load distribution and bending moment response across the raft, which is also governed by the degree of rigidity of the raft and by the difference in dishing at the pile toe level and in the dishing of the actual raft. Contact stress under the raft, be it large or small, is incidental to the response of a piled foundation and cannot be considered to reduce the effect of the load applied to the foundation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.052

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207