MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062751591 · doi:10.1520/gtj11045j

Apparatus and Procedures for Assessing Inorganic Diffusion Coefficients for Geosynthetic Clay Liners

2000· article· en· W2062751591 on OpenAlexaff
R. Kerry Rowe, Craig B. Lake, RJ Petrov

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeosynthetic clay linerDiffusionClay soilGeologySoil scienceSoil waterThermodynamicsHydraulic conductivityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The apparatus and procedure for performing tests to obtain inorganic diffusion coefficients for Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) are described, and the processes (diffusion, anion exclusion and osmosis) that can affect the interpretation of these tests are discussed. Results from several inorganic diffusion tests on GCL and bentonite specimens show that the diffusion coefficients deduced for sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl−) are directly related to the final bentonite void ratio. It is shown that diffusion through GCLs (or thin bentonite layers) can be modeled using a bulk porous media diffusion coefficient (Dp) consisting of the total porosity, nt, and a deduced diffusion coefficient, Dt, (Dp = ntDt) without the need to establish the true effective diffusion coefficient () without the need to establish the true effective diffusion coefficient (De) and effective porosity (ne). However, for a longer bentonite plug sample it is shown that the true effective diffusion coefficient (De) and effective porosity (ne) must be established to predict the contaminant transport through the sample.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations51
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207