MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946460427 · doi:10.1111/gwmr.12339

Field Trials of Chaotic Advection to Enhance Reagent Delivery

2019· article· en· W2946460427 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGroundwater Monitoring & Remediation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Petroleum Institute
KeywordsAdvectionChaoticChaotic mixingMixing (physics)MechanicsFlow (mathematics)TRACERPhysicsComputer scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chaotic advection is a novel approach that has the potential to enhance contact between an injected reagent and target contaminants, and thereby improve the effectiveness of in situ treatment technologies. One configuration that is capable of generating chaotic advection is termed the rotated potential mixing (RPM) flow. A conventional RPM flow system involves periodically reoriented dipole flow driven by transient switching of pressures at a series of radial wells. To determine whether chaotic advection can be engineered using such an RPM flow system, and to assess the consequent impact on the spatial distribution of a conservative tracer, a series of field‐scale experiments were conducted. These experiments involved the injection of a tracer in the center of a circular array of wells followed by either mixing using an engineered RPM flow system to invoke chaotic advection, or by natural processes (advection and diffusion) as the control. Pressure fluctuations from the mixing tests using the RPM flow system showed consistent peak amplitudes during injection and extraction at a frequency corresponding to the switching time, suggesting that the target hydraulic behavior was achieved with the time‐dependent flow field. The tracer breakthrough responses showed oscillatory behavior at all monitoring locations during the mixing tests which indicated that the desired RPM flow was generated. The presence of chaotic advection was supported by comparisons to observations from a previous laboratory experiment using RPM flow, and the Fourier spectrum of the temporal tracer data. Results from several quantitative metrics adopted to demonstrate field‐scale evidence of chaotic advection showed that mixing led to improved lateral tracer spreading and approximately uniform concentrations across the monitoring network. The multiple lines of evidence assembled in this proof‐of‐concept study conclusively demonstrated that chaotic advection can be engineered at the field scale. This investigation is a critical step in the development of chaotic advection as a viable and efficient approach to enhance reagent delivery.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.329 · 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