MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321331519 · doi:10.1061/40802(189)213

Simulated Hydraulic Response of AECL's Isothermal Test and Comparison with Measured Data

2006· article· en· W2321331519 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Guo, David A. Dixon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoreholeBentoniteGeotechnical engineeringGeologyRock mass classificationPore water pressureGroundwaterExcavation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large in-ground experiment, the Isothermal Test (ITT), was conducted in the Underground Research Laboratory to examine how a large mass of dense sand-bentonite buffer would take on water from a surrounding rock mass. The ITT was installed in a 1.24-m-diameter by 5-m-deep borehole in granite. The bottom two metres were filled with an in situ compacted sand-bentonite material. This material was capped by a 1.25-m-thick mass of concrete and was left undisturbed for 6.5 years. During this period, the pore water pressures in the buffer and the surrounding rock were continuously monitored. Numerical simulations were conducted using the commercially available finite-element program CODE_BRIGHT in an attempt to model the evolution of the pore water pressure in the unsaturated sand-bentonite buffer and the surrounding rock. The influence of the excavation-induced damage zone on the evolution of the hydraulic response in the sand-bentonite material and the rock was also examined. The water seepage from the rock to the borehole and the pore water pressure in the rock and the buffer were compared with the measured data.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207