MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015426477 · doi:10.1680/gein.2005.12.6.333

Permeating partially hydrated GCLs with jet fuel at temperatures from −20°C and 20°C

2005· article· en· W2015426477 on OpenAlexaff
R. Kerry Rowe, P. Hurst, Toshifumi Mukunoki

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosynthetics International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic conductivityMaterials scienceJet fuelConductivitySaturation (graph theory)Jet (fluid)Void ratioGeosynthetic clay linerGeosyntheticsChemistryComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringThermodynamicsSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydraulic conductivity of hydrated and partially hydrated geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) with respect to Jet Fuel A-1 (Arctic diesel) is examined at −20°C, −5°C, 5°C, and 20°C. Methods developed to hydrate GCLs to specific water contents (60%, 90%, 120%) and subject them to subzero temperatures without the additional uptake of water are described. Results indicate that there are two main mechanisms that affect the hydraulic conductivity of Jet Fuel A-1. For a constant bulk void ratio, as the water content increases, the hydraulic conductivity with respect to Jet Fuel A-1 decreases. Similarly, for a constant water content, as bulk void ratio decreases, the hydraulic conductivity with respect to Jet Fuel A-1 decreases. GCLs at positive temperatures with an initial degree of saturation (S r ) greater then 0.77 had a hydraulic conductivity with respect to Jet Fuel A-1 of less than 10 −9 m/s, whereas GCLs at subzero temperatures with S r > 0.70 had a hydraulic conductivity with respect to Jet Fuel A-1 of less than 2.5 × 10 −10 m/s. Highly saturated (S r > 0.85) GCLs at subzero temperatures were essentially impermeable, having a hydraulic conductivity with respect to Jet Fuel A-1 of less than 10 −12 m/s.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.212
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosynthetics InternationalSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207