MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623255747 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r236-06

Physical Investigation of Discrete Air Pocket Migration and Release in CSO Storage Tunnels

2010· article· en· W2623255747 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James W. Lewis, Steve Wright, José G. Vasconcelos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various rapid filling scenarios lead to the formation of large discrete air pockets in below ground storage tunnel systems. The release of trapped air pockets through a vertical shaft can potentially cause a geyser event in which untreated wastewater returns to the ground surface. It is important to the design efforts of these expensive systems to estimate the potential for such events and to provide solutions to mitigate the undesirable effects. However, little is known about the behavior of discrete air pockets once they are trapped within tunnel systems. Initial laboratory experiments were performed to qualitatively assess the main contributing variables for the direction and velocity of air pockets as they migrate within nearly horizontal systems. Experimental data is collected for air pocket migration in the direction of water flow. Next, a diameter expansion within the vertical shaft was investigated as a possible design modification to mitigate geyser events. Experimental variables such as the ratio of expansion diameters and the vertical location of the expansion were investigated to optimize the proposed design. The scalability of experimental results was explored by performing tests on a 0.095 m diameter tunnel as well as a 0.203 m diameter tunnel. Qualitative conclusions are presented and discussed from the experimental results.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207