MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754076303 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2017-0375

Field measurements of overlap reductions for two reinforced fabric-encased geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs)

2017· article· en· W2754076303 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
R. Kerry Rowe, R.W.I. Brachman, W. Andy Take

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeosynthetic clay linerGeomembraneShrinkageGeotechnical engineeringGeosyntheticsBentoniteMaterials scienceComposite numberHigh-density polyethyleneComposite materialGeotextileFull scaleGeologyPolyethyleneHydraulic conductivitySoil waterStructural engineeringEngineeringSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) reported to have experienced significant shrinkage at other locations are examined on both a 3H:1V south-facing slope and a relatively flat base on a silty sand. The GCLs were overlapped by 300 mm with 400 g/m of supplemental bentonite and covered by a black 1.5 mm high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane to form a composite liner that was left exposed in a full-scale field test embankment for a period of almost 5 years. It is shown that despite the relatively uniform exposure conditions, shrinkage is highly variable with a maximum shrinkage of GCL A being 165 mm on the slope and 415 mm on the base while GCL B shrunk by up to 75 mm on the side slope and only up to 25 mm on the base. The dominant role played by variable overlap stick and heterogeneity to the locations where the overlaps are re-wetted are discussed. Based on this study of shrinkage and a related study of downslope erosion at the same site, it is concluded that neither GCLs A nor B should be left in exposed composite liners when they can be subjected to thermal cycles that can lead to hydration and dehydration of the GCL.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207