On the appropriate “equivalent aperture” for the description of solute transport in single fractures: Laboratory‐scale experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three distinct definitions of “equivalent aperture” have been used in the literature to describe variable‐aperture fractures; however, significant inconsistencies exist in the literature as to which “equivalent aperture” is appropriate for simulating solute transport. In this work, a systematic series of hydraulic and tracer tests was conducted on three laboratory‐scale fracture replicas, and the cubic law, mass balance, and frictional loss apertures were calculated. The analytical solution of the one‐dimensional advection‐dispersion equation was fit to the experimental breakthrough curves. Additionally, one of the experimental aperture fields was measured directly using a light transmission technique. The results clearly demonstrate that the mass balance aperture is the only appropriate “equivalent aperture” for describing solute transport in a single variable aperture fracture and that the mass balance aperture is an excellent approximation of the arithmetic mean aperture. Previously, these conclusions have been reached based only on theoretical and numerical analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".