MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Specification of Matrix Cleanup Goals in Fractured Porous Media

2012· article· en· W1990613224 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Rodríguez, Bernard H. Kueper

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsPorous mediumMatrix (chemical analysis)Fracture (geology)PorosityDiffusionGroundwaterBedrockGeotechnical engineeringPore water pressureGeologyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceMechanicsComposite materialThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semianalytical transient solutions have been developed to evaluate what level of fractured porous media (e.g., bedrock or clay) matrix cleanup must be achieved in order to achieve compliance of fracture pore water concentrations within a specified time at specified locations of interest. The developed mathematical solutions account for forward and backward diffusion in a fractured porous medium where the initial condition comprises a spatially uniform, nonzero matrix concentration throughout the domain. Illustrative simulations incorporating the properties of mudstone fractured bedrock demonstrate that the time required to reach a desired fracture pore water concentration is a function of the distance between the point of compliance and the upgradient face of the domain where clean groundwater is inflowing. Shorter distances correspond to reduced times required to reach compliance, implying that shorter treatment zones will respond more favorably to remediation than longer treatment zones in which back-diffusion dominates the fracture pore water response. For a specified matrix cleanup goal, compliance of fracture pore water concentrations will be reached sooner for decreased fracture spacing, increased fracture aperture, higher matrix fraction organic carbon, lower matrix porosity, shorter aqueous phase decay half-life, and a higher hydraulic gradient. The parameters dominating the response of the system can be measured using standard field and laboratory techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207