MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103057855 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0310

Assessment of optimum width and longevity of a permeable reactive barrier installed in an acid sulfate soil terrain

2014· article· en· W2103057855 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Udeshini Pathirage, Buddhima Indraratna

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeable reactive barrierGroundwaterHydraulic conductivityEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringPollutantResidence time (fluid dynamics)ContaminationSoil scienceHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyMining engineeringEnvironmental remediationSoil waterChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Removal of contaminants from groundwater using permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) is a cost-effective and popular engineering solution used throughout the world. Dissolved pollutants in groundwater are removed through geochemical processes that make PRBs effective for different types of contaminants. In achieving this, it is vital to determine the optimum width of the PRB to allow adequate residence time within the barrier and to establish its longevity. For this purpose, both field monitoring and geochemical modelling were conducted for a trial PRB located in the Shoalhaven Floodplain, south of Wollongong in Australia. In this study, the optimum PRB width is evaluated numerically, based on the neutralization effectiveness, i.e., when acidic groundwater travels through the alkaline PRB. A model developed previously has been extended considering the residence time, reaction kinetics, mineral precipitation–induced reduction in porosity and hydraulic conductivity, influent concentrations of the contaminants, and groundwater flow velocity. Longevity of the PRB is determined with respect to groundwater flow rates and amount of reactive material consumed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207