Modelling biogeochemical clogging affecting piezometers in acid sulfate soil terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study offers an analytical solution for radial consolidation that captures the biogeochemical clogging effect in acid sulfate soils. Field sites and personal communication with industry practitioners have provided evidence of piezometers exhibiting retarded pore pressure readings that do not follow conventional soil consolidation and seepage principles when installed in coastal acidic floodplains. This retarded response together with a variation in pH, ion concentrations, and piezometric heads provided evidence of clogging at and around the piezometers. This paper uses the proposed biogeochemical clogging model, which is an analytically derived system of equations to estimate the excess pore water pressure dissipation of piezometers installed in clogging-prone acid sulfate soils. The inclusion of the total porosity reduction attributed to biological and geochemical clogging improves the predictions of the retarded dissipation of excess pore pressure, especially after about 1 year. This method is validated for two previously identified acidic field sites in coastal Australia, where piezometers measured a very slow rate of dissipation. It is concluded that this model has potential to accurately monitor the performance of critical infrastructure, such as dams and embankment foundations built on acidic terrain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".