MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299235280 · doi:10.1680/jwarm.15.00012

Compression of tire aggregates in leachate collection systems

2016· article· en· W2299235280 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marclus Mwai, Kristine Wichuk, Daryl McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWorkers Compensation Board of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateHydraulic conductivityCompactionCompression (physics)Geotechnical engineeringOverburdenDrainageEnvironmental scienceCompressibilityMaterials scienceComposite materialGeologyWaste managementSoil scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tire-derived aggregates (TDA) have previously been applied in leachate collection and drainage systems (LCDSs). However, these systems are subjected to large overburden pressures, which may compress a tire medium and change its properties, thereby affecting its performance. In this study, properties of three types of commercially-available TDA sourced from processors in Alberta, Canada were investigated under conditions expected in a landfill, along with the implications of these properties on hydraulic performance of LCDSs. A large test apparatus was used to compress the materials by up to 330 kPa. Samples tested were highly compressible, with strains of about 50% under 150–240 kPa loads (corresponding to landfill heights of 12–18·5 m under typical compaction). Vertical hydraulic conductivity decreased with compression, but remained above the Alberta threshold of 10 −4 m/s. No significant differences among media types were demonstrated. A criterion for determining the initial thickness of a drainage layer required to maintain a thickness of at least 300 mm over a landfill's lifetime. At least 600 mm of TDA would need to be placed to account for 50% compression.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource ManagementSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207