MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038114735 · doi:10.1520/gtj10808

Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve of Highly Compressible Materials: Case Study of Pulp and Paper By-Product

2004· article· en· W2038114735 on OpenAlexaff
AR Cabral, L Planchet, F. A. M. Marinho, Guy Lefèbvre

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsCégep de Rivière-du-LoupUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegree of saturationCompressibilitySaturation (graph theory)Geotechnical engineeringSuctionWater contentSoil waterPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceMathematicsGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A technique was developed for the determination of various points of the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC)—including the air entry value (AEV)—of compressible materials from one single test. The testing setup, which employs the axis-translation technique, is presented and the testing methodology, explained. With the proposed methodology, it is possible to determine the volume of the sample at various stages of the desaturation process, thus making it possible to determine the degree of saturation and volumetric water content for each level of suction applied. The results of some tests performed on deinking residues (DR), a fibrous and highly compressible industrial by-product used in geoenvironmental works, are presented and discussed. It is shown that if volume changes that samples undergo during desaturation are not considered, the volumetric water content and degree of saturation of the sample is underestimated at all suction values. One important consequence is that lower hydraulic conductivities are obtained from mathematical models based on the SWCC.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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