MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982383961

Impacts of matric suction equalization on small strain shear modulus of soils during air drying

2021· article· en· W6982383961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuctionSoil waterWater contentShear modulusAirflowWater potentialWater flowShear (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

© 2020, Canadian Science Publishing. All rights reserved. In this study, a weight-control bender element system has been developed to investigate the impact of matric suction equalization on the measurement of small strain shear modulus (Gmax) during an air-drying process. The setup employed is capable of measuring the shear wave velocity and the corresponding Gmax of the soil sample in either an open system in which the soil sample evaporates freely or in a closed system that allows the process of matric suction equalization. The comparison between measurements of Gmax in the open and closed systems revealed underestimations of Gmax when matric suction equalization was ignored due to the nonuniform distribution of water content across the sample cross-sectional area. This study also investigated the time required for matric suction equalization tse to be established for samples with different sizes. The experimental results indicated two main mechanisms driving the matric suction equalization in a closed system during an air-drying process, namely the hydraulic flow of water and the flow of vapour. While the former played the key role when the micropores were still saturated at the high range of water content, effects of the latter increased and finally dominated when more air invaded the micropores at lower water contents.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney)Same topicLiterature, Film, and Journalism AnalysisFrench-language works237,207