MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heavy Metal Sorption and Hydraulic Conductivity Studies Using Three Types of Bentonite Admixes

2001· article· en· W2036053124 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateBentoniteHydraulic conductivitySorptionLeaching (pedology)Environmental chemistryMetalGeosynthetic clay linerAdsorptionEnvironmental scienceCation-exchange capacityBark (sound)ChemistryHeavy metalsSoil waterSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bentonite, forest soil, and spruce bark were submitted to batch adsorption testing, leaching cell testing, and selective sequential extractions (SSEs) to investigate the heavy-metal compatibility of clay barriers and the potential of forest soil and spruce bark as clay barrier materials. The materials ranked as follows according to sorption capacity: forest soil > bentonite = spruce bark. The hydraulic conductivity values of heavy-metal leachates were two orders of magnitude greater than those of the blank (0.01 mol calcium nitrate) leachate. The forest soil admix ranked first in terms of heavy-metal retention capacity and breakthrough points. The mobility of Cd was 4.5 times higher than that of Pb, and Cu was 2.5 times more mobile than Pb. The leaching cell and SSE results indicate that heavy metals cause significant preferential channeling. The SSE results show that the addition of forest soil and spruce bark to clay barrier mixes promotes heavy-metal fixation.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.198 · 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