MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008112272

Využití konduktometru LTC pro charakterizaci proudění vody ve vrtech: Umělý vrt a terénní měření

2016· dissertation· cs· W3008112272 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Žaneta Rodovská

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languagecs
FieldEngineering
TopicHygrothermal properties of building materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My Master thesis is focused on a tracer dilution technique in the well using automatic conductivity logging probes LTC Levelogger (Solinst co. Canada). The main aim of my thesis was to test the application conductivity meters LTC to track the movement of fluids in wells. Different set up were used moving probes with unmodified sensor slit, moving probes with modified sensor slit, probes measuring at fixed points, combined moving and fixed points probes and results were compared. 15 wells in quaternary and 11 wells in Bohemian Cretaceous Basin were measured, some of them repeatedly. The comparison of results indicate that the highest apparent flow velocity have probes with unmodified sensor slit. On the other hand fixed point probes indicate flow velocity, which is 40 - 50% lower at the same wells. The combination of the stable positioned probe LTC and the moving probe LTC has about 40% higher flow velocity than the rate of steady probe LTC placed in the well. The results also indicate that extremely slow velocity values (below approximately 0.02 m/day) can be measured only with LTC probes at fixed points. Modified probe slit was tested in the laboratory in plexi-glass tube using fluorescein and NaCl tracers. Unfortunately the modified geometry of measuring slit does not show distinctively better...

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)Same topicHygrothermal properties of building materialsFrench-language works237,207