MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152172286 · doi:10.1029/2009wr007786

Measurement and prediction of the relationship between capillary pressure, saturation, and interfacial area in a NAPL‐water‐glass bead system

2010· article· en· W2152172286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)Capillary pressureImbibitionCapillary actionWettingCurvatureHysteresisMaterials scienceThermodynamicsMineralogyChemistryComposite materialPorous mediumGeometryMathematicsPhysicsPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the constitutive relationship between capillary pressure ( P c ), saturation ( S w ), and fluid‐fluid interfacial area per volume (IFA) is characterized using computed microtomography for drainage and imbibition experiments consisting of a nonaqueous phase liquid and water. The experimentally measured relationship was compared to a thermodynamic model that relates the area under the P c − S w curve to the total IFA, a n , and the capillary‐associated IFA, a nw . Surfaces were fit to the experimental and modeled P c − S w − a n and P c − S w − a nw data in order to characterize the relationship in three dimensions (3D). For the experimental system, it was shown that the P c − S w − a n relationship does not exhibit hysteresis. The model is found to provide a reasonable approximation of the magnitude of the 3D surfaces for a n and a nw , with a mean absolute percent error of 26% and 15%, respectively. The relatively high mean absolute percent errors are primarily the result of discrepancies observed at the wetting‐ and nonwetting‐phase residual saturation values. Differences in the shapes of the surfaces are noted, particularly in the curvature (arising from the addition of scanning curves and presence of a n − S w hysteresis in the predicted results) and endpoints (particularly the inherent nature of thermodynamic models to predict significant a nw associated with residual nonwetting‐phase saturation). Overall, the thermodynamic model is shown to be a practical, inexpensive tool for predicting the P c − S w − a n and P c − S w − a nw surfaces from P c − S w data.

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.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.203 · 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