MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radial Flow Permeability Testing of an Argillaceous Limestone

2012· article· en· W2059605633 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. P. S. Selvadurai, L. Jenner

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)BedGeologyGeotechnical engineeringBeddingMineralogyMechanicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Argillaceous Lindsay limestone is the geologic storage formation that will be encountered at the site for the construction of a deep ground repository in Ontario, Canada, for the storage of low to intermediate level nuclear waste. The permeability of the Lindsay limestone is a key parameter that will influence the long-term movement of radionuclides from the repository to the geosphere. This paper describes the use of both steady-state and transient radial flow laboratory tests to determine the permeability of this argillaceous limestone. The interpretation of the tests is carried out using both analytical results and computational models of flow problems that exhibit radial symmetry. The results obtained from this research investigation are compared with the data available in the literature for similar argillaceous limestones mainly found in the Lindsay (Cobourg) formation. The experiments give permeabilities in the range of 1.0 × 10(-22) to 1.68 × 10(-19) m(2) for radial flows that are oriented along bedding planes under zero axial stress. The factors influencing transient pulse tests in particular and the interpretation of the results are discussed.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207