Experimental and Numerical Modeling of Arsenic Transport in Limestone
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Arsenic is a common constituent of the earth's crust. It is a potential carcinogenic element which presents in natural water systems as a result of both natural and anthropogenic activities. Arsenic poisoning is a burning issue for some parts of the world, and the complete removal of arsenic from water is still being studied. Arsenic is readily soluble and transports easily through groundwater, and, in addition to a human health problem, arsenic flow can create a vulnerable situation in the underground oil and gas reservoir. Some underground oil and gas reservoirs are made up of porous and permeable rocks. The properties of these rocks can cause the arsenic to be adsorbed when they come in contact. This research was focused on finding a limestone filter for purification of arsenic-rich water, which can also prove the possible arsenic effect on a limestone reservoir. Three types of limestone were considered to measure the propagation rate of arsenic through them. Results show that limestone can adsorb a significant amount of arsenic from aqueous streams and can be used as a potential filter for arsenic removal for a small community or for industrial purposes. Limestone can inhibit the release of arsenic water in nature. The predictive numerical model shows that oil and gas reservoirs are not in threat where there is abundant limestone available on the earth crust.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it