Databases for Data-Centric Geotechnics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Databases for Data-Centric Geotechnics forms a definitive reference and guide to databases in geotechnical and rock engineering, to enhance decision-making in geotechnical practice using data-driven methods. This second volume pertains to geotechnical structures. The opening chapter presents a substantial survey of performance databases and the effectiveness of our prediction models in matching the field measurements in these databases, based on (1) full-scale field tests, (2) 39 prediction exercises organized as a part of international conferences, and (3) comparison between numerical analyses and in-situ or field measurements conducted by the French LCPC. The focus is on the evaluation of the statistical degree of confidence in predicting various of quantities of interest such as capacity and deformation. The following 18 chapters then present databases on the performance of shallow foundations, spudcan foundations, deep foundations, anchors and pipelines, retaining systems and excavations, and landslides. The databases were compiled from studies undertaken in many countries such as Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. This volume on geotechnical structures is a companion to the volume on site characterization. Databases for Data-Centric Geotechnics represents the most diverse and comprehensive assembly of database research in a single publication (consisting of two volumes) to date. It follows from Model Uncertainties for Foundation Design, also published by CRC Press, and suits specialist geotechnical engineers, researchers and graduate students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.118 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".