The stability of dolomite in landfill leachate-collection systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses several approaches to examine whether calcium-containing aggregate such as dolostone is a suitable drainage material for landfill leachate-collection systems. The thermodynamic stability of carbonate drainage materials has been assessed using published leachate data from landfills in the United Kingdom and leachate sampled from four large landfill sites of variable age in southern Ontario. Electron-microbeam techniques have been used to check for dissolution in dolomitic stone exhumed from the drainage layer of the Keele Valley Landfill leachate-collection system and from experiments that simulated landfill conditions. The mineralogy of cover soils applied daily to the landfill has been compared to the drainage stone and detrital material occluding pore space in the leachate-collection system to evaluate their relative contributions to clogging. The data suggest that dissolution of dolomitic drainage stone is not significant and contributes little to the clogging of landfill leachate-collection systems. However, crystallization of secondary calcite occurs about the dolomitic stones and sizeable quantities of inorganic fines, including dolomite, were present within some samples of "clog material" exhumed from the Keele Valley collection system. Most of the dolomitic fines probably were generated during construction of the collection system; such creation of fines ought to be minimized in future landfill developments.Key words: leachate-collection system, landfills, clogging, mineralogy, leachate chemistry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".