MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412420625 · doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2025.108247

Equations for modeling the shrinkage behavior of unsaturated soils

2025· article· en· W4412420625 on OpenAlexafffund
Yao Li, Sai K. Vanapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Geology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsShrinkageSoil waterGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between the soil volume and water content (i.e., either gravimetric or volumetric) is referred to as the soil shrinkage curve (SSC). Several researchers have proposed models for predicting the SSCs for fine-grained soils in the literature. However, a valid theoretical framework that can be reliably extended for modeling shrinkage curves is still lacking. In this study, a framework is proposed for modeling the SSCs by extending the assumption that the soil volume change under matric suction is strongly related to variation of pore size distribution. The assumption for modeling SSCs is consistent with the well-established method for modeling the soil water characteristics curves. The equations based on the proposed framework were found to be valuable in the reliable prediction of the shrinkage curves of various soils. The relationships between the proposed SSC equations and the widely used models from the literature are also discussed. The present study provides a new approach for modeling the SSCs that can be used for interpreting and modeling the complex hydro-mechanical behaviors of unsaturated soils.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEngineering GeologySame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207