MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386605444 · doi:10.1201/9781003386889-86

Comparison between the environmental stress-crack resistance of unaged and aged HDPE and LLDPE geomembranes

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386605444 on OpenAlexafffund
Rodrigo Alves e Silva, M.S. Morsy, F.B. Abdelaal, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsGeomembraneLinear low-density polyethyleneHigh-density polyethyleneMaterials scienceResistance (ecology)Stress (linguistics)Geotechnical engineeringComposite materialPolyethyleneEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-density (HDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembranes are used in barrier systems in various containment applications. The former is known for its better chemical resistance, while the latter is known for its higher stress-crack resistance (SCR). The SCR of high-density polyethylene is well defined in the literature, but the SCR of LLDPE as well as its failure mechanism are rarely addressed. This paper thus investigates the SCR of LLDPE versus HDPE geomembranes based on the fractured plane of unaged and aged specimens examined using the single-point notched constant load tensile test method. The GMBs were aged using a synthetic heap leaching solution with pH 13.5 at 85°C. Failed specimens are analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, after which the differences in fracture surface for both LLDPE and HDPE resins are discussed. The relationship between SCR, tensile break elongation, and melt flow index is also presented for the geomembranes examined.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207