MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123380900 · doi:10.1139/t10-024

Effects of infiltration and evaporation on geosynthetic capillary barrier performance

2010· article· en· W2123380900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John S. McCartney, Jorge G. Zornberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)Capillary actionGeotechnical engineeringWater contentSoil waterGeotextileWettingWater retention curveWater retentionSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study includes an experimental investigation of the transient movement of water in unsaturated soil layers underlain by a geocomposite drainage layer (GDL) during cycles of infiltration and evaporation. The distribution in volumetric water content with depth in a soil column having a height of 1350 mm underlain by a GDL was measured during transient infiltration. The capillary break effect was observed to affect the soil up to a height of 500 mm above the GDL, with an increase in volumetric water content up to 20% above that expected for the case of infiltration under a unit hydraulic gradient. Due to the long duration of this test (2000 h), a shorter 150 mm high soil column was also evaluated to investigate the soil–GDL hydraulic interaction during cycles of infiltration and evaporation. The capillary break was observed to have re-established itself after infiltration was stopped and the soil near the interface dried. The suction and volumetric water content measured in the soil at breakthrough were consistent after multiple cycles of wetting and drying. The conditions in the soil after each breakthrough event corresponded to the point on the drying-path water retention curve of the nonwoven geotextile where it transitioned from residual to saturated conditions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 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

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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