MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553796816 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2015-0596

Permeability anisotropy and resistivity anisotropy of mechanically compressed mudrocks

2016· article· en· W1553796816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy L. Adams, Taylor James Nordquist, John T. Germaine, Peter B. Flemings

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnisotropyElectrical resistivity and conductivityPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyPorosityMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringMineralogyOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permeability anisotropy (the ratio of the horizontal to vertical permeability) develops in mudrocks at the macroscale due to heterogeneities such as layering and at the element scale (i.e., within a single homogeneous layer or unit) due to decreasing porosity and increasing platy particle alignment. This work describes new experimental methods and results from a laboratory program using cubic specimens to investigate the evolution of mudrock permeability and resistivity at the element scale. A systematic study analyzes the evolution of the permeability anisotropy and electrical resistivity anisotropy using resedimented Boston blue clay (RBBC) over a stress range of 0.4–40 MPa; additional measurements are presented for three other mudrocks within varying clay fraction and clay mineralogy within the stress range 1.2–10 MPa. The permeability anisotropy and the conductivity anisotropy (inverse of the resistivity anisotropy) of all four mudrocks studied ranges from 1 to 2.2 over the porosity range 0.55–0.30. A nearly 1:1 correlation between the electrical conductivity anisotropy and the permeability anisotropy is observed to be independent of clay fraction or clay mineralogy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207