Bibliographic record
Abstract
The body of work presented in this Thesis document provides a comprehensive examination of final cover design for municipal solid waste landfills. Accompanying general design principals is the investigation and resulting recommendations for issues specific to the closure of the Vancouver Landfill. The first objective of the Thesis was to develop a set of physical characteristics for soil materials, which would allow for the construction of a lowpermeability barrier layer meeting British Columbia guidelines. The second objective was to then use the developed soil criteria to evaluate the suitability of Lower Mainland soils. The physical characteristic of soil material, originating from trench excavations in Vancouver, was closely examined and the material evaluated for use in all layers of final cover design. The last objective of the Thesis was to investigate the use of alternative cover materials, including geosynthetics, in final cover design. The combination of a comprehensive literature review and the implementation of a program of soil sample collection and analysis allowed for the completion of the above objectives. Testing of soil samples included the determination of the grain size distribution to the clay fraction level. The major findings of the work are that soil sources in the City of Vancouver are not suitable for use in the construction of a low-permeability barrier layer. Suitable soil sources however, can be found in areas of Surrey and Langley. Trench excavation soil is recommended for use in the foundation layer of the final cover. Lastly, geosynthetic materials are a viable alternative to the use of soil in final cover design. A polyvinyl chloride (PVC) geomembrane would be the most suitable geosynthetic based barrier layer for the requirements of the Vancouver Landfill.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".