MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730111971 · doi:10.1002/nag.2706

Stress and strain fields for overdamped slug tests in aquifer materials, and resulting conservation equation

2017· article· en· W2730111971 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert P. Chapuis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSlug testAquiferMechanicsConstitutive equationYield surfaceHydraulic conductivityGeotechnical engineeringLaplace transformMathematicsClassical mechanicsPhysicsMathematical analysisGeologyFinite element methodThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Two theories may be used to analyze overdamped variable‐head (slug) tests in aquifer materials. The first theory assumes that the solid matrix strain has a negligible influence. The second theory takes into account some elastic and immediate strain. Something is wrong with these theories because they yield different hydraulic conductivity values. This paper explains what is wrong after establishing the strain‐stress elastic equations for a slug test in 2 ideal conditions: plane strain and spherical symmetry. The equations show that the radial contraction (or elongation) and tangential elongation (or contraction) yield a null volumetric strain. As a result, the conservation is described by the Laplace equation, which is used by the first theory. This first theory is the only one to yield correct solutions. The diffusion equation, with storativity, which is used by the second theory, is physically ill founded for slug tests in aquifers. This new proof scientifically confirms previously raised doubts and experimental proofs that the second theory is ill founded.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207