MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radial Flow Permeability Testing of an Argillaceous Limestone

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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

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)0.0010.000

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