Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
greater decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search), greater disease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
greater decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search), greater disease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search)
-
10521
Model monitoring points and units coordinates.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10522
Soil mechanical parameters.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10523
Parameters of the contact surface.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10524
-
10525
The schematic diagram of free-field boundary.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10526
Residual deformation parameters of soil.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10527
Soil fluid and liquefaction parameters.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10528
PL-Finn model development procedure diagram.
Published 2025“…Results demonstrate that unreinforced foundations exhibit systematic residual deformation due to liquefaction-induced sand flow, which is significantly reduced by gravel pile reinforcement. Both excess pore water pressure and pore pressure ratio decrease markedly after reinforcement. …”
-
10529
Key modeling details for CoVPF and controls.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, we found that accounting for epistasis was critical, as ignoring epistasis led to a 43% decrease in forecasting accuracy. Case studies showed that CoVPF delivered more accurate and timely forecasts for lineage expansions and inflections such as EG.5.1 and XBB.1.5. …”
-
10530
LSTM model.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10531
CNN model.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10532
Ceramic bearings.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10533
Geometric contact arc length model.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10534
Indentation fracture mechanics model.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10535
Grinding particle cutting machining model.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10536
Three stages of abrasive cutting process.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10537
CNN-LSTM action recognition process.
Published 2025“…According to the experimental results, when the grinding depth increases to 21 μm, the average training loss of the model further decreases to 0.03622, and the surface roughness Ra value significantly decreases to 0.1624 μm. …”
-
10538
Overall model framework.
Published 2024“…The results show that: (1) From the experimental data of word sense disambiguation, the accuracy of the SMOSS-LSTM model proposed in this paper is the lowest when the context range is "3+3", then it rises in turn at "5+5" and "7+7", reaches the highest at "7+7", and then begins to decrease at "10+10"; (2) Compared with the control group, the accuracy of syntactic analysis in the experimental group reached 89.5%, while that in the control group was only 73.2%. (3) In the aspect of English text error detection, the detection accuracy of the proposed model in the experimental group is as high as 94.8%, which is significantly better than the traditional SMOSS-based text error detection method, and its accuracy is only 68.3%. (4) Compared with other existing researches, although it is slightly inferior to Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) in word sense disambiguation, this proposed model performs well in syntactic analysis and English text error detection, and its comprehensive performance is excellent. …”
-
10539
Key parameters of LSTM training model.
Published 2024“…The results show that: (1) From the experimental data of word sense disambiguation, the accuracy of the SMOSS-LSTM model proposed in this paper is the lowest when the context range is "3+3", then it rises in turn at "5+5" and "7+7", reaches the highest at "7+7", and then begins to decrease at "10+10"; (2) Compared with the control group, the accuracy of syntactic analysis in the experimental group reached 89.5%, while that in the control group was only 73.2%. (3) In the aspect of English text error detection, the detection accuracy of the proposed model in the experimental group is as high as 94.8%, which is significantly better than the traditional SMOSS-based text error detection method, and its accuracy is only 68.3%. (4) Compared with other existing researches, although it is slightly inferior to Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) in word sense disambiguation, this proposed model performs well in syntactic analysis and English text error detection, and its comprehensive performance is excellent. …”
-
10540