MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127741862 · doi:10.3390/w13030383

Optimization of the Groundwater Remediation Process Using a Coupled Genetic Algorithm-Finite Difference Method

2021· article· en· W3127741862 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seyed Morteza Seyedpour, Iman Valizadeh, Panagiotis Kirmizakis, Rory Doherty, Tim Ricken

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeQueen's UniversityDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftQueen's University BelfastEuropean Commission
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationGroundwaterGroundwater remediationFinite differenceProcess (computing)Genetic algorithmGroundwater flowSandbox (software development)Design of experimentsPermanganateComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringContaminationChemistryStatisticsAquifer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In situ chemical oxidation using permanganate as an oxidant is a remediation technique often used to treat contaminated groundwater. In this paper, groundwater flow with a full hydraulic conductivity tensor and remediation process through in situ chemical oxidation are simulated. The numerical approach was verified with a physical sandbox experiment and analytical solution for 2D advection-diffusion with a first-order decay rate constant. The numerical results were in good agreement with the results of physical sandbox model and the analytical solution. The developed model was applied to two different studies, using multi-objective genetic algorithm to optimise remediation design. In order to reach the optimised design, three objectives considering three constraints were defined. The time to reach the desired concentration and remediation cost regarding the number of required oxidant sources in the optimised design was less than any arbitrary 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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207