Experimental study of initial water content and specimen preparation method effects on Kunigel-V1 bentonite swelling pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a newly developed swelling pressure apparatus, swelling pressure tests were conducted to elucidate initial water content and specimen preparation method effects on swelling pressures (swelling pressure evaluation curve and equilibrium swelling pressure) of Kunigel-V1 bentonite. X-ray diffraction (XRD) tests were conducted to investigate the initial water content and specimen preparation method effects on basal spacing, including basal spacings of specimens before and after wetting. Experiments produced the following results. (1) The swelling pressure evaluation curve changed from a line with peak and valley to a line with early-stage steady rise as increasing initial water content. (2) The initial water content and specimen preparation method exerted no apparent effect on the equilibrium swelling pressure. (3) Basal spacing of the specimen before wetting was affected not only by the initial water content but also by the specimen preparation method. (4) The initial water content did not influence the basal spacing of the specimen after wetting. It was only affected by the specimen preparation method. Based on the swelling pressure evaluation curve patterns, swelling mechanisms during saturation for specimens with different initial conditions were discussed. Initial water content and specimen preparation method effects on equilibrium swelling pressure were explained carefully with basal spacings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".