MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2898169999 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2018-83473

Development and Validation of Enthalpy-Porosity Method for Artificial Ground Freezing Under Seepage Conditions

2018· article· en· W2898169999 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud A. Alzoubi, Agus P. Sasmito

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiphysicsGround freezingGroundwaterGeotechnical engineeringHeat transferMechanicsPorosityConservation of massCoolantFlow (mathematics)Materials sciencePetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringFinite element methodMechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater flow has an undesirable effect on ice growth in artificial ground freezing (AGF) process: high water flow could hinder the hydraulic sealing between two freeze pipes. Therefore, a reliable prediction of the multiphysics ground behavior under seepage flow conditions is compulsory. This paper describes a mathematical model that considers conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. The model has been derived, validated, and implemented to simulate the multiphase heat transfer between freeze pipes and surrounded porous ground structure with and without the presence of groundwater seepage. The paper discusses, also, the influence of the coolant’s temperature, the spacing between two freeze pipes, and the seepage temperature on time needed to create a closed, frozen wall. The results indicate that spacing between two pipes and seepage velocity have the highest impact on the closure time and the frozen body width.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→