MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413135935 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0413

Probabilistic quasi-site-specific CPT-based soil classification

2025· article· en· W4413135935 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jianye Ching, Xiang Li, Hassan Kamyab Farahbakhsh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsProbabilistic logicGeotechnical engineeringSoil classificationGeologyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceSoil waterStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study compiles a database named CPT-USCS/3/2017 that consists of 2017 pairwise cone penetration test (CPT) versus Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) category data from 228 global sites. The current study also proposes a novel hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) framework named USCS-HBM to learn the inter-site and intra-site characteristics in the database. The USCS-HBM trained by the database can produce a prior model for the target site, and this prior model is updated by the sparse target-site data into the quasi-site-specific model. The resulting quasi-site-specific model can be adopted to predict USCS categories based on CPT measurements. The proposed USCS-HBM framework explicitly addresses the challenge of site uniqueness in CPT-based soil classification as well as the practical challenge of sparse target-site data. Case studies and extensive cross-validations showed that the proposed USCS-HBM framework can provide meaningful prediction results for USCS categories based on CPT measurements even if the target-site data are sparse.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207