MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056047244 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0313

Hydraulic conductivity of clay mixed with nanomaterials

2014· article· en· W2056047244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C.W.W. Ng, Jason Lim Coo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeameterHydraulic conductivityNanomaterialsMaterials scienceConductivityPorosimetryPorosityGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialPorous mediumNanotechnologyGeologyChemistrySoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this note is to investigate the hydraulic conductivity behavior of clay mixed with nanomaterials. Two different nanomaterials — namely, gamma-aluminum oxide powder (γ-Al 2 O 3 ) and nano-copper oxide (CuO) — were selected and mixed with clay at different percentages (i.e., 2%, 4%, and 6%). Hydraulic conductivity tests were carried out in a flexible wall permeameter following the ASTM D5084 standard. Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) tests were also carried out to determine the pore-size distribution. At 2% of γ-Al 2 O 3 and nano-CuO, the hydraulic conductivity of clay decreased 30% and 45%, respectively. As the proportion of the nanomaterial increases, the reduction of hydraulic conductivity becomes less prominent as flow paths devoid of nanomaterials are unlikely. Reduction of hydraulic conductivity is due to the pores of clay being clogged by the nanomaterial. Pore-size distribution curves show that the largest pore size reduced by 20% when clay was mixed with 4% nano-CuO.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations68
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207