MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413185869 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0186

Modelling the stress–dilatancy behavior of carbonate sand in Abu Dhabi

2025· article· en· W4413185869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deepa Kunhiraman Nambiar, Tadahiro Kishida

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyAbu dhabiDilatantCarbonateMaterials scienceArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbonate sands are the primary material used in the construction of reclaimed islands in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Their stress–strain behavior exhibits unique characteristics due to strong particle interlocking, which arises from their naturally angular platy shapes. This interlocking effect contributes to the distinctive dilatancy of carbonate sands and poses challenges in modeling their stress–dilatancy response using the conventional NorSand constitutive model. To address this, the NorSand model was extended by incorporating an additional material parameter to better capture their dilatancy behavior. The extended model was validated through consolidated drained triaxial compression tests conducted on carbonate sand collected from an artificial island in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Additionally, variations in model parameters were investigated by collecting experimental results of carbonate sands from various geographical regions. To assess parameters uncertainties, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed using conditional multivariate normal distributions. A systematic assessment demonstrates that the newly introduced material parameter plays a crucial role in accurately capturing the stress–strain response and regional behavior of carbonate sands.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207