MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2213357129 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0412

Gas migration through water-saturated bentonite–sand mixtures, COx argillite, and their interfaces

2015· article· en· W2213357129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiangfeng Liu, Yang Song, Frédéric Skoczylas, Jian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBentoniteGeosynthetic clay linerSwellingGeologyClay mineralsGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceHydraulic conductivityMineralogySoil scienceComposite materialSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

France’s deep-seated nuclear waste repository consists of a natural barrier located at a depth of 500 m in a Callovo-Oxfordian clayey formation. This repository has artificial barriers that include plugs of swelling clay (MX80 bentonite – sand mixtures) for sealing purposes. This paper focuses on the gas migration properties of water-saturated bentonite–sand mixtures and their interfaces with COx argillite. The main contribution of our study is the identification of a preferential gas migration pathway by measuring the downstream gas breakthrough pressures and gas flow rates. The water permeabilities of the bentonite–sand mixtures and their interfaces with COx argillite or COx argillite itself are the same order of magnitude (10 −20 –10 −21 m 2 ). Thus, water tightness can be obtained for these materials when they become completely saturated. The results obtained from the gas breakthrough tests suggest that both the COx argillite and its interface with the bentonite–sand mixture can act as preferential pathways for gas migration. The transport of the gas through the COx argillite or through its interface with the bentonite–sand mixture depends on the initial state of the COx argillite.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations71
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207