Hydraulic conductivity of zeolite–bentonite mixtures in comparison with sand–bentonite mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted using tap water on zeolite–bentonite mixtures (ZBMs), sand–bentonite mixtures (SBMs), and a zeolite–sand–bentonite mixture (ZSBM) at various bentonite contents (BCs). The hydraulic conductivities of ZBMs were at least one order of magnitude higher than those of SBMs at the same BCs. It was also determined that the hydraulic conductivity of 30% ZBM (i.e., 30% bentonite and 70% zeolite) was still higher than that of 10% SBM (i.e., 10% bentonite and 90% sand). The higher hydraulic conductivity of ZBMs with respect to SBMs is attributed to the porous structure of zeolite. Zeolite grains form a network in ZBMs that helps transmit water throughout this network. Moreover, bentonite water contents were calculated using a model proposed previously. Through the modified model, it is shown that not only the zeolite network, but also larger pores between bentonite particles may cause higher hydraulic conductivities for ZBMs. Finally, the influence of zeolite particle size on the hydraulic conductivity was tested. It was observed that the hydraulic conductivities of ZBMs were more or less the same, indicating that the hydraulic conductivity of ZBM is independent of zeolite particle size within the considered BC range.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".