MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessment of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Using Hybrid Gaussian Process Regression Approach

2025· article· en· W7084759626 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)KrigingProcess (computing)Gaussian processRegressionGround-penetrating radarRegression analysisPredictive modelling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces an innovative approach to predicting the ultimate bearing capacity Qu using Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) analysis. The research establishes a robust connection between Qu and crucial natural soil attributes, as well as the quantity of stabilizing additives, using GPR models. Specific GPR prediction models are meticulously crafted to ensure precise Qu estimations, addressing the complexities inherent in soil stabilization processes. To bolster the accuracy of these models, two meta-heuristic algorithms, Prairie Dog Optimization (PDO) and Dynamic Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm (DAOA), are seamlessly integrated into the study. These algorithms verify the models by analyzing Qu samples from different soil types collected during previous stabilization tests. The study presents three distinct predictive frameworks: the GPR–PDO model (GPPD), the GPR–DAOA model (GPDA), and a standalone GPR model, each providing valuable insights for precise Qu prediction under diverse soil conditions. Among these, the GPAS model emerges as a standout performer, achieving an impressive R² value of 0.996 and an exceptionally low RMSE value of 658.99, demonstrating superior predictive capability. The findings highlight the model's accuracy, robustness, and practical relevance for forecasting soil stabilization outcomes in engineering applications. This integrated approach not only provides reliable predictions for Qu but also emphasizes the role of meta-heuristic algorithms in improving model performance. By offering a precise, efficient, and adaptable methodology, the study presents significant implications for the construction industry, enabling engineers and designers to optimize soil stabilization strategies, reduce risk, and enhance overall project safety and cost-effectiveness. The combination of GPR modeling with advanced optimization techniques represents a forward step toward intelligent, data-driven geotechnical engineering practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business→French-language works237,207→