MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093440521 · doi:10.1680/gein.2005.12.3.145

Hydraulic behaviour of soil–geocomposite layers in slopes

2005· article· en· W2093440521 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosynthetics International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversitySNC-Lavalin (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)GeotextileGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDrainagePore water pressureSoil waterSoil scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behaviour of initially unsaturated soil–geocomposite layers in slopes subject to infiltration is investigated using numerical experiments. The post-infiltration performance is also studied. A series of transient finite element analyses of soil–geocomposite layers is conducted for a variety of soils, slopes and infiltration rates. The influence of these variables on the effectiveness of geocomposites as a drainage material and as a capillary barrier is discussed. The effect of entrapped air within a geotextile is also examined. This study shows that the geocomposite drains more water with a decrease in slope angle and an increase in infiltration rate (i.e. the geocomposite works as a capillary barrier for smaller infiltration rates and steeper slope of the soil–geocomposite layers). It is also shown that the soil immediately above the geocomposite becomes wet before the geocomposite starts draining water, and it remains wet for a relatively long period of time after the infiltration event.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
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