Osmotic flow through a Cretaceous clay in southern Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clays and shales can act as semipermeable membranes, causing osmotic flow and (or) osmotically induced fluid pressures. Despite laboratory proof of the osmotic behaviour of clay-rich geologic material, the influence of this osmotic behaviour on in situ groundwater flow and solute transport is inconclusive. This is due in part to the lack of laboratory experimental work involving undisturbed core samples, and to the lack of field-scale research. The ability of undisturbed clay samples to conduct flow hydraulically and osmotically was investigated using dilute salt solutions. Undisturbed Cretaceous clay samples from southern Saskatchewan were used in a laboratory experimental program. The experiments included constant-head hydraulic conductivity (Kh) tests and osmotic flow tests conducted over a range of pore-fluid concentrations of 0.0541.12 equiv./L. The clay samples exhibited semipermeable membrane behaviour by conducting flow osmotically. The hydraulic conductivity of the clay increased by a factor of two as the pore-fluid concentration increased from 0.070 to 0.56 equiv./L. Osmotic efficiencies ranged from 0.0028 to 0.42 for concentrations from 0.84 to 0.096 equiv./L. Both the osmotic compressibility and osmotic efficiency decreased with increasing pore-fluid concentration. The behaviour of the clay was consistent with diffuse double-layer theory.Key words: osmotic flow, Cretaceous clay, salt, hydraulic conductivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".