MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010168368 · doi:10.1061/41095(365)79

Particle Size Analysis of Shale-Rich Mined Clay from Appalachian Ohio

2010· article· en· W2010168368 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony R. Moran, Hiroshan Hettiarachchi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoFlorida 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleSampling (signal processing)GeologyDrillingParticle-size distributionMining engineeringClay soilSoil testGrain sizeClay mineralsGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterSoil scienceParticle sizeMineralogyEngineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clayey soil found in coal mines in Appalachian Ohio is typically used for constructing Recompacted Soil Liners (RSL) in landfills. The suitability of mined clay for RSL in Ohio is first decided by its clay content. Even though the standard sampling and processing techniques should not produce different grain-size distributions, mined clay from Appalachian Ohio is an exception. This discrepancy poses a challenge to the geotechnical engineers who work on prequalification process of RSL material. This paper describes a laboratory investigation conducted on mined clay from Appalachian Ohio to determine how and why the standard sampling and/or processing methods affect the grain-size distributions. About a 10 percent decrease in the clay content was consistently observed in the samples obtained from clayey soil stockpiles, compared to those collected during reverse circulation drilling. It was discovered that the fragments of shale in underclay was responsible for the discrepancy.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoFlorida 2010Same topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207