MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064628186 · doi:10.1520/gtj20120198

Full-Scale Evaluation of the Performance of Three Compacted Clay Liners

2013· article· en· W2064628186 on OpenAlexaff
Robert P. Chapuis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyScale (ratio)Clay soilSoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the performance of three compacted clay liners for holding and treating municipal wastewater in three lagoons. The quality controls for the liners included verification of compaction conditions (dry density and water content) and full-scale leakage tests. These were made by filling each lagoon with clear water and monitoring the leakage rate versus water level in the lagoon. This paper presents the quality control data, the predicted local values of the hydraulic conductivity k versus void ratio e, and degree of saturation Sr as achieved by compaction, and a statistical prediction of the large-scale k value for each liner. For this case history, one full-scale test was performed before winter and the measured large-scale k value agreed with the predicted value. Two full-scale tests were performed the following spring, and revealed that frost had seriously damaged the liners of the two lagoons, which had been left empty during winter. The paper thus validates a previously proposed model for predicting hydraulic conductivity, and it also provides a statistical approach to predict the large-scale k value of undamaged clay liners.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207