MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020894840 · doi:10.1021/es0602501

Investigating Ebullition in a Sand Column Using Dissolved Gas Analysis and Reactive Transport Modeling

2006· article· en· W2020894840 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard T. Amos, K. Ulrich Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWater columnBiogeochemical cycleTRACERBromideMethaneChemistryEnvironmental chemistryAtmosphere (unit)Environmental scienceGreenhouse gasGeologyOceanographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ebullition of gas bubbles through saturated sediments can enhance the migration of gases through the subsurface, affect the rate of biogeochemical processes, and potentially enhance the emission of important greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. To better understand the parameters controlling ebullition, methanogenic conditions were produced in a column experiment and ebullition through the column was monitored and quantified through dissolved gas analysis and reactive transport modeling. Dissolved gas analysis showed rapid transport of CH4 vertically through the column at rates several times faster than the bromide tracer and the more soluble gas CO2, indicating that ebullition was the main transport mechanism for CH4. An empirically derived formulation describing ebullition was integrated into the reactive transport code MIN3P allowing this process to be investigated on the REV scale in a complex geochemical framework. The simulations provided insights into the parameters controlling ebullition and show that, over the duration of the experiment, 36% of the CH4 and 19% of the CO2 produced were transported to the top of the column through ebullition.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations63
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207