Quantifying geomembrane wrinkles using aerial photography and digital image processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geomembranes are highly effective barriers, and are often a key component in the design of composite landfill liner and cover systems. During installation, solar exposure causes some types of geomembrane to buckle locally upwards and form networks of wrinkles (sometimes referred to as waves). These wrinkle networks may be significant in terms of increasing leakage through this barrier system if there is a hole at or near the wrinkle. In this paper, a novel method to quantify geomembrane wrinkles in the field is reported using low-altitude aerial digital photography and image processing techniques. The results of the analysis indicate that, at the date and time the aerial image was captured, the geomembrane contained 100 major wrinkles, which covered 13.9% of the total area of the exposed geomembrane. More importantly from a potential leakage perspective, over 90% of these wrinkles were found to be hydraulically connected over the entire field of view of the exposed geomembrane. This one hydraulically connected wrinkle was found to have an aggregate length of 520 m.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".