MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413150820 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2025-0017

Experimental investigation on the erodibility and slaking of glacial till

2025· article· en· W4413150820 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alireza Shamkhalchian, Brodie Lane Blight, Shawn P. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlumeGeotechnical engineeringGlacial periodLimeEnvironmental scienceErosionAtterberg limitsWater erosionSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)GeologySoil scienceWater contentGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates glacial till erosion and the impact of slaking—soil disintegration upon water immersion—critical for projects like the Lake St. Martin Outlet Channel in Manitoba, Canada. Using a hydraulic flume, 48 erosion tests on intact glacial till revealed that non-slaked till consistently exhibited critical shear stress exceeding 13 Pa, often beyond the 17 Pa limit of the apparatus. In contrast, slaked till had a critical shear stress below 2 Pa, indicating significantly higher erodibility. The slaking threshold, determined by drying samples to increasing matric suction levels before immersion, ranged from 4 to 400 Pa, depending on sample density and clay content. Slowly saturated samples showed no slaking, while lime stabilization effectively mitigated slaking, suggesting it as a viable erosion control method. These findings enhance understanding of glacial till behavior and support improved infrastructure design and management in flood control projects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicSoil erosion and sediment transport→French-language works237,207→