RELIABILITY OF GUELPH PERMEAMETER FOR DETERMINING THE LINERS HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the Guelph permeameter can be effectively used as a quick and reliable instrument to measure the hydraulic conductivity of compacted mineral liners. The investigation was carried out on two distinct areas of the final capping of a municipal solid waste landfill in Italy. On the first test site, hydraulic conductivity tests were performed using the Guelph permeameter, assessing reliability and repeatability of test results. On the second one, many undisturbed soil samples were taken and tested in the laboratory using a modified oedometric apparatus as a falling-head permeameter. Further hydraulic conductivity tests with Guelph permeameter were also performed in the holes made by soil sampling. The campaign was integrated with in situ density tests using the calibrated sand method, to check the uniformity of the compaction degree of liners. A final comparison between hydraulic conductivity obtained in situ and in the laboratory was proposed and critically analysed. The experiments performed on the two test sites with the Guelph permeameter and their statistical processing demonstrate that the instrument is not only economical and easy to use, but also reliable if used with appropriate precautions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".