Design and construction of a compacted clay liner in cover system of a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill using nonstandard procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design and construction of a mineral barrier layer involve many experimental and technological aspects. A specific soil water content and laboratory compaction energy, which are required to obtain permeability values according to the national regulation in force, must be determined. It is also necessary to control water content, compaction energy, and permeability of the liner actually compacted in situ. This paper shows how a compacted mineral barrier mainly composed of silty clay soil (the excavated soil is a natural but potentially re-usable waste product) was put in place to cover a large municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill and compacted using a heavy dumper, capable of achieving an adequate compaction degree. The in situ hydraulic properties of the liner were compared with those obtained by laboratory testing and to the limits imposed by the Italian regulation. The actual compaction degree was checked by in situ tests. Hydraulic conductivity tests were carried out in situ, using Boutwell and Guelph permeameters, and in the laboratory using rigid wall and flexible wall permeameters. In situ testing provided more realistic permeability values than laboratory ones and demonstrated that the actual construction procedure used was effective to obtain the design targets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".