MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901306753 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0394

Stochastic modeling of kaolinite transport through a sand filter

2018· article· en· W2901306753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jongmuk Won, Susan E. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeorgia Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringParticle-size distributionGrain sizePorous mediumKaoliniteParticle sizeParticle (ecology)Filtration (mathematics)CloggingAggregate (composite)Stochastic modellingWork (physics)GeologyPorositySoil scienceMaterials scienceMineralogyMathematicsComposite materialEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately modeling the transport of clay particles through coarse-grained porous media is essential to engineering applications ranging from filtration and drainage, groundwater flow modeling, to contaminant transport. However, predicting the retention and clogging behavior of clay particles within a coarse-grained soil matrix is extremely challenging because clay particles can aggregate and form clusters with a variety of fabrics depending on the prevailing geochemistry of the pore fluid (i.e., pH and ionic strength). The work performed in this study developed a stochastic model to investigate the uncertainty of clay particle transport in porous media using random sampling at a given grain-size distribution to account for inherent uncertainty of the size of clay clusters being transported. Results demonstrated that the model proposed in this work can evaluate upper and lower boundaries of retention profiles of clay particles in a sand medium at given mean and standard deviation of grain-size distributions. In addition, the deterministic approach (using median sizes of sand and clay particles in the simulation) underestimated the mass of retained particles at small size ratios of clay particle size/sand particle size when compared with the stochastic prediction, which would result in nonconservative design.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207