MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136269298 · doi:10.1139/t07-057

Modelling the clogging of coarse gravel and tire shreds in column tests

2007· article· en· W2136269298 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
R. Kerry Rowe, D. L. Babcock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCloggingLeachateGeotechnical engineeringDrainagePorosityVolume (thermodynamics)Environmental scienceGeologyWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of data from laboratory tests and modelling is reported for both coarse gravel (19–38 mm) and two types of tire shred permeated with municipal solid waste leachate. It is suggested that the dispersivity of both the coarse gravel (initially about 4 mm) and tire shreds (initially about 45 mm) increases as the porosity of the drainage media is reduced because of clogging. The detachment of biofilm caused by growth and shear is examined and both are found to influence clogging. The average grain size estimated based on the measured surface area of the particles within a unit volume is shown to provide a good prediction of the rate of clogging for gravel and a conservative prediction for tire shreds. The size and density of suspended solids in leachate is found to significantly influence clogging rates. It is shown that Monod kinetic constants deduced for gravel at 27 °C give a good prediction of clogging for two different types of tire shred at the same temperature. Calibrated parameters used with the BioClog model are shown to give good fits to the porosity of both gravel and tire shred drainage material in laboratory column tests over time periods of up to 2 years.

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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207