MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097384611

Korean Geosynthetic Society Conference

2003· article· en· W7097384611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrost (temperature)Degradation (telecommunications)Spring (device)PrecipitationFrost heavingRange (aeronautics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1.1 General degradation mechanisms A large part of south – eastern Canada lies on low strength soils, i.e. sensitive clays or silty clays. Despite these materials are more complex to handle for roadways construction because they require thicker structures, it is now widely accepted that the major degradation mechanisms may not be only related to the nature of the soil. It is very common to observe that drivability of a roadway built according to engineering practice with regard to structural design could potentially decrease much faster than it would in other parts of the world, considering structurally similar subgrades. An explanation to this phenomenon lies on the fact that most of Canadian roadways are exposed to freezing temperatures 4 to 7 months a year, combined with annual precipitations in the range of 700 to 1500 mm of water. In central and eastern Canada, frost depth in winter may vary between 1 and 3 meters. As a consequence, the degradation mechanisms are typical of northern climates regions. The various climate-specific degradations in Canada can be classified in two major categories: degradations essentially caused by very low temperatures (occurrence in winter), and degradations associated to freeze – thaw cycles (occurrence during spring time). During winter, degradations are directly related to subsurface temperatures below the freezing point.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.164 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207