Experimental study on dual capillary barrier using recycled asphalt pavement materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a capillary barrier cover as a cover system is affected by the ability of the capillary barrier to store water. To increase the water storage of a capillary barrier cover, the dual capillary barrier (DCB) concept is proposed. The objective of this paper is to investigate the water storage of the proposed DCB as compared to the storage of a traditional single capillary barrier (SCB). The investigation is conducted using two one-dimensional infiltration column tests under different rainfall conditions. The results show that a DCB stores more water as compared to SCB. The results show that the fine-grained layers of a DCB have higher volumetric water contents during drainage as compared to that of the fine-grained layer of an SCB. The higher volumetric water content is caused by the fact that the thickness of the layers in a DCB corresponds to a pore-water pressure head range where the material has the highest volumetric water content. In addition, a slower drainage rate is resulted from additional layering in a DCB.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".