The behavior of inclined covers used as oxygen barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covers with capillary barrier effects (CCBE) have been recently proposed as a viable option for gas migration barriers. However, the effect of geometry on CCBE performance has not been clearly demonstrated. In this paper, the results of a laboratory study performed with an original apparatus called the inclined box are presented. The results obtained show that the hydraulic behavior of layered covers is influenced by the inclination of the slope. Generally, the upper part of the slope contains less water than the lower part. This means that the upper part is less efficient than the lower part for limiting gas migration. The authors have also studied an existing site where a CCBE was built on a sloping surface. After validation of the numerical model with in situ measured data, the model was used to perform a parametric study to quantify the influence of the main CCBE parameters on its performance. The results obtained confirm those measured in the lab and clearly show how geometry influences the performance of the CCBE. Based on these results, a simple relationship is proposed for a preliminary estimation of sloping covers performance to limit oxygen migration by diffusion.Key words: cover with capillary barrier effects, acid mine drainage, slope effects, laboratory investigation, in situ measurements, design criteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".