MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202275383

Filtering and drainage of contaminated water

2014· article· en· W202275383 on OpenAlexaff
R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloggingDrainageLeachateEnvironmental scienceGeotextileEnvironmental engineeringGeotechnical engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Waste managementEngineeringGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: This paper provides a summary of relevant field and laboratory studies pertaining to the long-term performance of filter and drainage materials used in leachate collection systems and agricultural drains. It is shown that clogging rate is related to: the leachate strength and mass loading; grain size, grain size distribution, and initial pore volume of the granular drainage material; and the use of a granular or geotextile filter/separator between the waste and the drainage layer or around the drainage pipe. The assessment of likely clog development within geotextiles and granular materials is discussed and techniques for estimating the service life of leachate collection systems due to biological, chemical, and physical clogging are summarized. Recommendations are made regarding means of improving the field performance of leachate collection systems. However, it is concluded that there is no current predictive method to assess either the likely extent of clog formation within the geotextile or surrounding soil for agricultural drains, or the service life of these agricultural drains, and it is concluded that additional research is required in this area.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207