MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050701254 · doi:10.1520/gtj100385

A Drainage Column Test for Determining Unsaturated Properties of Coarse Materials

2006· article· en· W2050701254 on OpenAlexaff
RP Chapuis, Isabelle Masse, Bénédicte Madinier, Michel Aubertin

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulic conductivityDrainageWater retention curveGeotechnical engineeringPermeability (electromagnetism)Saturation (graph theory)GeologyTest dataWater flowVolume (thermodynamics)Water retentionSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceSoil waterMathematicsEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A column test was developed to define the water retention curve and the unsaturated permeability function of coarse materials during drainage. The test includes five steps. First, the material is placed in the column at a constant density, using vacuum and deaired water to reach close to 100 % saturation, which is checked using a mass and volume method. Second, the saturated hydraulic conductivity is determined by a constant head test. Third, a gravity drainage test is performed and the volume of drained water is monitored versus time. Fourth, after full drainage, which can take several weeks, the material is removed from the top of the column, to determine the water content versus elevation and thus the water retention curve. Fifth, the water retention data and selected models are used to predict the drainage flow rate and compare the predictions to the experimental data. This helps to define the best hydraulic functions for the material. Examples are provided to illustrate the key elements of the test.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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