Expansive soil characterization: CC/CS ratio method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper suggests a new method for characterizing expansive soils by considering recorded data from oedometer test, namely compression index (C C ), swelling index (C S ) and the swelling pressure (σ S ). Collected data included recorded values of the three parameters from 168 Tunisian soil samples and 41 soil samples from Algeria, Canada, France, Morocco and USA. Main finding was that when the C C /C S ratio is greater than 10, the soil is classified non-expansive with a swelling pressure lesser than 50 kPa. In turn, when C C /C S < 10, the soil is classified as expansive with a swelling pressure higher than 50 kPa when its clay content is above 35%. Whilst, for sand clays with clay content less than 30%, the swelling pressure is lower than 50 kPa despite the C C /C S ratio is lower than 10. For the classified Tunisian expansive soils, the cloud dots in (C C /C S ; σ S ) plan is bounded between two parallel lines, thus suggesting the primary correlation based on the proposed method of characterization of expansive soils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".