MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In Situ Ground Water Remediation Using the Trench and Gate System

2000· article· en· W2006539542 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc W. Bowles, L. R. Bentley, Bill Hoyne, David Andrew Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationTrenchIn situEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterGeologyContaminationMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeographyNanotechnologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The trench and gate remediation system is a funnel and gate design modified for installation in tills and other low permeability sediments. Modifications include the addition of high hydraulic conductivity trenches along the upgradient side of the funnel walls and a discharge reinfiltration gallery downgradient from the treatment gate. Preferential ground water flow through the high permeability trenches and reinfiltration gallery prevents mounding, which otherwise forces flow beneath and around funnel walls. The resultant capture zone is larger, both horizontally and vertically, than the cross‐sectional funnel area and is significantly larger than the capture zone of a similar funnel and gate system. The system constitutes an economical, in situ, long‐term contaminant plume capture and treatment method. In effectiveness and cost, the trench and gate system compares favorably with, or outper‐forms, other remediation systems in near‐surface, low permeability dissolved contaminant scenarios. A prototype trench and gate system was installed at the East Garrington Gas Plant, Alberta, Canada, in 1995. The installation demonstrated the effectiveness of the concept, and the system has successfully prevented off‐site migration of dissolved hydrocarbon contaminants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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