MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366963960 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202338221004

Efficacy of Pond Ash as a Cover Material in Single and Dual Capillary Barriers

2023· article· en· W4366963960 on OpenAlexafffund
C. S. S. U. Srikanth, B. J. Ramaiah, A. Murali Krishna, Sai K. Vanapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceFly ashDrainageWaste managementEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, numerical study results that highlight the capability of using pond ash as a cover material in covers with capillary barrier effects are succinctly summarized. A model was exclusively developed and calibrated using commercial software SEEP/W for this study. After calibration, the efficiency of pond ash as a coarse-grained layer (CGL), fine-grained layer (FGL), unsaturated drainage layer (UDL), and seepage control layer (SCL) was investigated using various combinations. The CCBE made of pond ash obtained from the output and input points of an ash pond as alternate fine- and coarse-grained layers were observed to perform well. The performance of pond ash as UDL and SCL was also observed to be good. The approach presented in this study is valuable in assessing likely slope failures of coal ash storage facilities that may be triggered by rainfall events. The study aids in significantly reducing rainfall infiltration, improving the overall stability of the slopes, and promoting sustainability by utilising the concept of “waste covering waste”. The approaches used in this study can be extended in the rational design of slopes to address the future challenges anticipated with unprecedent rainfall events and its negative impacts associated with climate change effects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207