MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299510955 · doi:10.2134/jeq2015.01.0001

Evaluation of Soil Manipulation to Prepare Engineered Earthen Waste Covers for Revegetation

2015· article· en· W2299510955 on OpenAlexaff
W. Joseph Waugh, Craig H. Benson, William H. Albright, Gregory M. Smith, R. P. Bush

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
FundersOffice of Legacy ManagementU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsLoamTrenchWater contentRevegetationCobbleEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringSeedbedGeologySoil textureSoil waterSoil scienceLayer (electronics)Materials scienceLand reclamationAgronomyComposite materialEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seven ripping treatments designed to improve soil physical conditions for revegetation were compared on a test pad simulating an earthen cover for a waste disposal cell. The field test was part of study of methods to convert compacted-soil waste covers into evapotranspiration covers. The test pad consisted of a compacted layer of fine-textured soil simulating a barrier protection layer overlain by a gravelly sand bedding layer and a cobble armor layer. Treatments included combinations of soil-ripping implements (conventional shank [CS], wing-tipped shank [WTS], and parabolic oscillating shank with wings [POS]), ripping depths, and number of passes. Dimensions, dry density, moisture content, and particle size distribution of disturbance zones were determined in two trenches excavated across rip rows. The goal was to create a root-zone dry density between 1.2 and 1.6 Mg m−3 and a seedbed soil texture ranging from clay loam to sandy loam with low rock content. All treatments created V-shaped disturbance zones as measured on trench faces. Disturbance zone size was most influenced by ripping depth. Winged implements created larger disturbance zones. All treatments lifted fines into the bedding layer, moved gravel and cobble down into the fine-textured protection layer, and thereby disrupted the capillary barrier at the interface. Changes in dry density within disturbance zones were comparable for the CS and WTS treatments but were highly variable among POS treatments. Water content increased in the bedding layer and decreased in the protection layer after ripping. The POS at 1.2-m depth and two passes created the largest zone with a low dry density (1.24 Mg m−3) and the most favorable seedbed soil texture (gravely silt loam). However, ripping also created large soil aggregates and voids in the protection layer that may produce preferential flow paths and reduce water storage capacity. Core Ideas Soil-forming and ecological processes are changing engineering properties of earthen covers. These changes may transform compacted soil designs into evapotranspiration covers. Ripping implements were tested as a way to enhance transformation of layered rock/soil covers. Disturbed soil volume, cover layer mixing, and change in dry density were greater for winged rippers. Ripping also created large soil aggregates and voids in compacted soil layers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207