Fracturing in low-permeability soils for remediation of contaminated ground
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a field study on hydraulic fracturing for in situ remediation of contaminated ground. Sand-propped hydraulic fractures were placed from vertical and horizontal wells at a test facility. Field excavations were conducted to expose the fractures and inspect their distribution and geometry. Fractures that were mapped by field excavation were found to be near horizontal, implying that the soil formation is overconsolidated. It was also observed that the sand "proppant" was thicker at locations where the soil layers were relatively weak or contained weak fissures. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was also conducted in an attempt to map the fractures. There was no indication that fractures were being mapped by this geophysical technique. Fracture mapping based on tiltmeter data analyses conformed closely with the actual fracture placement in the vertical well but did not properly predict the actual fracture placement in the horizontal well.Key words: hydraulic fracturing, field test, low-permeability soil, electrical resistivity tomography, tiltmeters, horizontal well, vertical well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it