MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070433514 · doi:10.1144/sp400.8

Self-sealing experiments and gas injection tests in a backfilled microtunnel of the Mont Terri URL

2014· article· en· W2070433514 on OpenAlexaff
G. W. Lanyon, Paul Marschall, Thomas Trick, Rémi de La Vaissière, Hua Shao, Helen Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes a large-scale experiment on gas transport and hydromechanical processes around underground structures as part of a long-term geoscientific research programme at the Mont Terri Underground Rock Laboratory in the Jura Mountains of Switzerland. A horizontal microtunnel with a diameter of 1 m and a length of 13 m was drilled in an overconsolidated claystone formation. After installing monitoring instruments in the open tunnel, the end of the tunnel was backfilled with sand (test section) and a large hydraulic packer was emplaced in the seal section. The packer was inflated and subsequently the test interval was saturated with a synthetic pore-water. Following saturation an extended programme of hydraulic testing was performed over a two year period. A series of gas injection tests was then performed over a period of approximately 1.5 years. Following this first series of gas injections, a long post-gas hydraulic test has been initiated. The paper presents data and interpretation of the gas injections and subsequent hydraulic testing. The ability of the excavation damage zone to transport gas at pressures below fracturing is demonstrated. The post-gas hydraulic performance is considered and related to the self-sealing of the damage zone observed during saturation and hydraulic testing.

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 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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207