MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071132211 · doi:10.1029/2007gl031713

Analytical solution for flow of gelling solutions in porous media

2007· article· en· W2071132211 on OpenAlexaff
Tirupati Bolisetti, Stanley Reitsma, Ram Balachandar

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNutrasourceUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorous mediumGroutMaterials sciencePolymerPorosityViscosityDispersion (optics)Hydraulic conductivityChemical engineeringFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringPolymer solutionPetroleum engineeringComposite materialMechanicsEnvironmental scienceGeologySoil scienceEngineeringSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical grouts are polymer solutions that form gel when reacted with cross‐linkers. These gelling liquids are injected into porous media for geotechnical applications such as soil improvement; geoenvironmental (environmental containment) applications and secondary petroleum recovery applications. The polymer solutions and cross‐linkers when injected into porous media react at a predefined time to form gels, usually referred to as gel time. The formation of gels modifies the porous media hydraulic conductivity. In the present study, an analytical solution is developed to obtain the pressures required to inject a gelling solution. While considering the effect of advection, it is assumed that the dispersion does not affect gelation and hence the grout injection. The analytical solution has applications in analyzing the problems, such as effects of gelation time, ratio of gelation time to injection time and verifying the numerical models that simulate flow and transport of solutions with time varying viscosity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207