Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 332 case histories (332 sites) of excavations in clays are collected in the EXCAV-CLAY/15/2830 database, covering 20 countries/regions worldwide, including Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom (UK), and United States (US) (see Table S1 in Supplementary Material). Most sites are located in Taipei, Taiwan (71% of the total sites). Each site usually consists of multiple instrumentations (inclinometer and settlement measurement) with multiple excavation stages. The database contains a total of 2830 excavation stages. The types of retaining wall system in the EXCAV-CLAY/15/2830 database consist of concrete diaphragm wall (DW), contiguous pile wall (CPW), secant pile wall (SPW), and sheet piles (SP), whereas the construction methods consist of bottom-up method (BU, temporary steel strut as lateral support) and top-down method (TD, concrete floor slab as lateral support). According to the type of movement-control measure used in each site, the sites in the database are classified into sites with ground improvement (GI sites), sites with buttress walls (BW sites), sites with cross-walls (CW sites), and sites without movement-control measures (NR sites, denoting “no reinforcement”). Some sites are hybrid, e.g., combining both BW and CW. The GI sites collected in this database are with “full improvement” that span across the excavation area, which is usually achieved by a series of overlapping improvement piles, resulting in a “continuous” base slab (e.g., jet grout slab) over a certain range of depth. The basic information for the case histories, including excavation dimensions, field measurements, soil and structural parameters, and system stiffnesses, is included in Supplementary Material (see Table S1).
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.029 |
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".