MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977649992 · doi:10.1520/gtj11341j

Extracting Piezometric Level and Hydraulic Conductivity from Tests in Driven Flush-Joint Casings

2001· article· en· W1977649992 on OpenAlexaff
RP Chapuis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingGeotechnical engineeringBoreholeHydraulic conductivityPermeability (electromagnetism)Hydraulic headGeologyHead (geology)CloggingDrillingEngineeringSoil sciencePetroleum engineeringSoil waterMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Permeability tests in borehole casings must satisfy many conditions to give reliable results. A test can be done only in a driven flush-joint casing. When a casing is rotated, its contact against the adjacent soil does not provide a seal good enough to assess the local k-value. Only water injection can be used (either falling-head or constant-head) because water extraction creates upward forces that destabilize the soil and induce either soil heave or clogging. Other conditions are explained in the paper. Interpretation methods differ mainly in their assumptions about solid matrix deformability during the test. The paper describes an interpretation method based on the equation of mass conservation: it leads to a graph of downward water velocity in the casing. This graph provides the error made in the quick field estimate of piezometric level (PL) for a tested zone. Several examples are provided, including tests that produce hydraulic separation between soil and casing. The PL obtained with this graph was always similar to that given by a monitoring well installed at the same level after borehole completion. From analysis of many tests at the same site, information can be obtained on natural water seepage conditions using a variation of PL versus depth.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.248
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207