MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413820624 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0452

The effect of thermoactivated pile spacing on the thermo-mechanical response of energy soldier piled walls—experimental study and initial numerical observations

2025· article· en· W4413820624 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luis Villegas, Raúl Fuentes, Guillermo A. Narsilio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileGeotechnical engineeringGeologyStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piles used for vertical and lateral support can function as heat exchangers. While there is extensive knowledge on the thermo-mechanical response of axially loaded piles, less is known about laterally loaded piles. Observations show minimal differences between largely spaced thermo-activated piles in piled energy walls and axially loaded piles, with more significant effects reflected in axially thermally induced stress. This study uses experimental and numerical methods to examine the impact of activating multiple piles with different inter-pile spacings on the structural and geotechnical performance of piles in a retaining wall built in sedimentary rocks. Experimental results indicate that activating largely spaced piles is comparable to activating closely spaced piles with a reduced temperature change. Initial numerical results confirm that over the experimental period, the thermally induced structural demands shear forces and bending moments, and lateral displacements remain marginal to their initial mechanically induced demands, while remaining within the design limits for the case study.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207