Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building upon the database of LEAP-UCD-2017, twenty centrifuge model tests of liquefaction and lateral spreading are shared and compared in this archive. Some of the experiments were conducted according to the conventional centrifuge scaling laws; others were conducted according to a generalized scaling law. Please see the general report section of the published project for an overview comparison and background of all of the experiments. The comparisons presented in the general report section will serve as an index to help the users find individual experiments of interest. This data from the model tests is published as ten separate experiments in this archive (one experiment per centrifuge facility). Each "experiment" includes one or more model tests and each model test includes between one and three destructive shaking events. All of the tests modeled a 4 m thick deposit of Ottawa F-65 sand with a 5-degree surface slope in a rigid box. The tests covered a range of ground motion intensities and a range of relative densities to define the median response and the sensitivity of the response to relative density and shaking intensity. The ten centrifuge facilities involved in this test program included Cambridge University (UK), Ehime University (Japan), IFSTTAR (France), NCU (Taiwan), KAIST (Korea), Kyoto University (Japan), RPI (USA), UC Davis (USA), Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan) and Zhejiang University (China).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it