Assessment of the Applicability of a Constant-Head Borehole Permeameter Test to River Levees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Guelph Permeameter (GP) test, one of the constant-head borehole permeameter tests, is a potential tool for studying the heterogeneous alluvial deposits in the foundation of river levees. However, the applicability in the targeted environment and adequacy of the information obtained by the tests are still unclear. Experiments are conducted in a model ground and in the field to verify the applicability of the GP test concerning underseepage through river levees. Discussions focus on the effects of the groundwater table, seepage behavior during the test, and the representative volume of soil tested. It is noted that for sandy and silty soils, reasonable estimations of the hydraulic conductivity can be made by applying the Reynolds’ solution, but the estimation of the hydraulic conductivity in clayey soil is affected by the macropores in the soil. The GP tests performed in this study have representative volumes on the order of a few to tens of centimeters so that heterogeneity can be investigated at the meter scale. In summary, the GP test is a useful tool for evaluating the underseepage through river levees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".