MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385737190 · doi:10.3390/geosciences13080241

Theoretical Developments for the Interpretation of Cavity Flow Permeability Tests Conducted on Intact Lac du Bonnet Granite

2023· article· en· W4385737190 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. P. S. Selvadurai

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNuclear Waste Management OrganizationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyShieldGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsPetrologyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The permeability of intact geologic media features prominently in many geo-environmental endeavours. The laboratory estimation of permeability is an important adjunct to the field estimation of bulk permeability values, which involves a great deal of supplementary in situ investigations to correctly interpret field data. Laboratory permeability estimation is also a viable method if core samples are recovered from in situ geological mapping of the region under study. The basic methodologies for permeability estimation rely on either steady-state or transient tests of the geologic material depending on the anticipated permeability value. This paper presents a steady flow test conducted on a partially drilled cavity located on the axis of a cylindrical specimen. Certain compact theoretical relationships are proposed for the estimation of steady flow from a cavity of finite dimensions located along the axis of a cylindrical specimen. The relationships are used to estimate the permeability of a cylinder of Lac du Bonnet granite obtained from the western flank of the Canadian Shield. The results from the cavity flow permeability experiments are compared with other estimates for the permeability of granitic rocks reported in the literature.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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