Errors with Small Volume Elastic Seepage Meter Bags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of small volume elastic collection bags (condoms) has become popular in seepage meter studies in recent years, despite minimal field or laboratory validation of their use and, specifically, the impact of their elasticity on seepage measurements. A laboratory study was initiated after field results using small elastic collection bags produced seepage data that did not correlate with hydrometric data. The laboratory data demonstrate that condoms undergo significant mechanical relaxation during seepage measurement times typically observed in field settings. Unlike conventional nonelastic collection bags, which mechanically relax over several minutes, the condoms suffered from a slow mechanical relaxation or equilibration. Over nine hours, condoms gained 43 mL of water, approximately 50% of maximum workable volume (between mechanical relaxation effect and elastic limit), under stagnant flow conditions. This long-term equilibration invalidates simple subtraction of equilibration volumes from collection volumes as a correction technique. Previously published studies using flexible small-volume elastic measurement bags (condoms) have not reported a mechanical relaxation effect. Overall, because the condom's small workable volume and inherent variability, we would not recommend any small-volume elastic measurement bags for quantitative seepage measurements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".