MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087541228 · doi:10.1139/t00-055

Experimental validation of a finite strain theory for gassy mud

2000· article· en· W2087541228 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
BG HM Wichman, G. C. Sills, Ramón González

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Pore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceOutflowPetroleum engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Netherlands large quantities of polluted mud must be stored in large-scale disposal sites. The storage capacity of these sites and the outflow of contaminated pore water can be predicted by means of one-dimensional finite strain theory. By making various theoretical assumptions, a self-weight consolidation computer program for gassy sludge has been developed. These assumptions are verified by simulating a small-scale column test with biogenic gas production. Good agreement was obtained between the measured and simulated density profiles, excess pore pressures, and settlements. This paper also deals with the validation of simulations with this computer program by means of field measurements from the Slufter disposal site, which is used to store polluted mud from Rotterdam harbour. The field measurements consist of mud level measurements and profiles of water content, gas content, bulk density, and pore-water pressure for two locations in the disposal site. The computer simulations are in reasonable agreement with the field data. The method described here can be used to predict the future disposal capacity on the basis of estimates of the supply of mud and the production of gas.Key words: consolidation, unsaturated, disposal, experimental, validation, soft soil.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207