MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W576246807 · doi:10.1520/stp156820130012

Practice of Testing Frozen Soils

2013· book-chapter· en· W576246807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Finn E. Oestgaard, Hannele Zubeck

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterGeologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When designing building foundations, infrastructure, or operations for natural resource retrieval in cold regions, mechanical properties of frozen soils need to be known in order to avoid sudden bearing capacity failures, excessive creep settlements, and slope failures. Several methods exist to measure the mechanical properties of frozen soils, some of them specified by the ASTM International; however, it is not clear if these test methods are in current use. Do they need to be modified or, in the light of several new developments in the Arctic areas, are new test methods needed? To investigate these issues as well as issues with the rest of the D18.19 standards, a survey was created and sent to laboratories around the world testing frozen soils. The purpose of this paper is to present the survey results. Responses were received from Alaska, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the continental United States. According to the survey results, none of the practices and standard test methods currently under the jurisdiction of the D18.19 are considered outdated; they are all relevant to current industry practice, are utilized as references for their corresponding test methods, and are used by several laboratories. Laboratory tests not currently standardized by ASTM International are performed on a regular basis in the frozen soil industry. The standardization of the following frozen soil tests is recommended: Thaw Consolidation Test, Shear Stress Test and Tri-axial Compression Test. The standardization of the field tests examined in this study is not recommended until further investigation regarding these test methods are performed. The current D18.19 standard test methods and practices do not require major modifications. The only recommended modification for the current standards relates to ASTM D4083-89: Standard Practice for Description of Frozen Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007. These results can be used to guide the future development of D18.19 standards.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→