Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strength mobilisation framework was adopted for the first time to describe the stress–strain responses for three different types of sands, including a total of 30 published drained triaxial tests—25 for Karlsruhe Fine Sand, 2 for Ottawa sands and 3 for Fontainebleau sand, under confining pressures ranging from 50 to 400 kPa. The peak shear strength τpeak obtained from drained triaxial shearing of these sands was used to normalise shear stress. Shear strains normalised at peak strength γpeak and at half peak of shear strength γM=2 were taken as the normalised reference strains, and the results were compared. Power–law functions were then derived when the mobilised strength was between 0.2τpeak and 0.8τpeak. Exponents of the power–law functions of these sands were found to be lower than in the published undrained shearing data of clays. Using γM=2 as the reference strain shows a slightly better power–law correlation than using γpeak. Linear relationships between the reference strains and variables, such as relative density, relative dilatancy index, and dilatancy, are identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".