MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808937137 · doi:10.1002/2017wr020362

Lagrangian simulation of mixing and reactions in complex geochemical systems

2017· article· en· W2808937137 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas B. Engdahl, David A. Benson, Diogo Bolster

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEulerian pathParticle (ecology)LagrangianMixing (physics)Statistical physicsParticle systemComputer scienceCode (set theory)DisequilibriumMass transferAlgorithmMechanicsPhysicsApplied mathematicsMathematicsGeologySet (abstract data type)Computer graphics (images)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Simulations of detailed geochemical systems have traditionally been restricted to Eulerian reactive transport algorithms. This note introduces a Lagrangian method for modeling multicomponent reaction systems. The approach uses standard random walk‐based methods for the particle motion steps but allows the particles to interact with each other by exchanging mass of their various chemical species. The colocation density of each particle pair is used to calculate the mass transfer rate, which creates a local disequilibrium that is then relaxed back toward equilibrium using the reaction engine PhreeqcRM. The mass exchange is the only step where the particles interact and the remaining transport and reaction steps are entirely independent for each particle. Several validation examples are presented, which reproduce well‐known analytical solutions. These are followed by two demonstration examples of a competitive decay chain and an acid‐mine drainage system. The source code, entitled Complex Reaction on Particles (CRP), and files needed to run these examples are hosted openly on GitHub ( https://github.com/nbengdahl/CRP ), so as to enable interested readers to readily apply this approach with minimal modifications.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations63
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207