MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023841057 · doi:10.1520/gtj10905

Permeability Tests in Rigid-Wall Permeameters: Determining the Degree of Saturation, its Evolution, and its Influence of Test Results

2004· article· en· W2023841057 on OpenAlexaff
RP Chapuis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDegree of saturationPermeability (electromagnetism)Saturation (graph theory)Materials scienceGeologySoil scienceSoil waterChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper documents a method to determine the degree of saturation, Sr, of a soil specimen at any time during a rigid-wall permeameter test. This method first indicates that the tested specimen usually is not fully saturated. Then it is used to prove that the usual test termination criterion based on equality of inflow and outflow volumes may be misleading. Examples are provided where the two volumes were equal within 1 %, whereas Sr increased from 80 to 100 % and k increased by a factor of 4. Without knowing the technique to determine the Sr value at any time, the test would have been stopped prematurely and would have given some k(Sr) value for an unknown Sr with the risk of misinterpreting this result as k(Sr = 100 %). New equations for gas transfer between water and gas bubbles are also established and experimentally verified for specimens permeated with either deaired water or water over-saturated with air.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.246
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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207