MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382680239 · doi:10.1680/jgein.23.00028

Leakage through a circular geomembrane hole overlain and underlain by silty sand tailings

2023· article· en· W4382680239 on OpenAlexaff
Jiying Fan, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosynthetics International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgradeTailingsGeotechnical engineeringHydraulic headLeakage (economics)GeomembraneMaterials scienceGeosyntheticsGeologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments are conducted to investigate leakage through circular GMB holes overlain and underlain by both tailings with various hole diameters and GMB thicknesses. Finite element analyses are performed to explore the effect of hydraulic conductivities (k) of subgrade (underliner) and tailings above the GMB (overliner) on water head contours dissipation. An analytical solution is developed for predicting leakage through circular GMB hole overlain and underlain by both tailings. Results show that the effect of subgrade on leakage is highly dependent on the ratio of k between the underliner and the overliner. If the ratio >100, no head loss occurs in the subgrade; if the ratio <0.01, all the head loss occurs in the subgrade. With the deposition of fines from overliner into subgrade, a low permeable filter cake is formed on the subgrade surface, notably increasing the impact of underliner on leakage. With the increasing ratio of k between underliner and overliner from 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, and to 100, the ratio of leakage relative to a highly permeable subgrade increases from 0.01, 0.1, 0.56, 0.93, and to 1. An intimate interface contact can be achieved when the GMB is underlain by silty sand tailings as subgrade (foundation) material.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosynthetics InternationalSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207