MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410238734 · doi:10.1016/j.clay.2025.107855

Techniques for porewater extraction from clayrocks

2025· article· en· W4410238734 on OpenAlex
Martin Mazurek, Paul Wersin, Florian Eichinger, Adrian Bath, Tom A. Al, Ian D. Clark, Laura Kennell-Morrison, Niko Kampman, Daniel L. Traber

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Clay Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management OrganizationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)GeologyGeochemistryEnvironmental chemistryChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical and isotopic composition of porewaters in clayrocks records the palaeo-hydrogeological evolution of sedimentary basins. However, porewater extraction is in general demanding and time-consuming. Techniques have been newly developed or adapted in recent years, and progress in analytical methods, in particular the minimisation of sample mass needed for analysis, have opened new opportunities for porewater studies. Depending on their degree of induration, clayrocks span a wide range of porosities. They all have in common a nanometric pore-space architecture, which results in low permeability and the predominance of diffusive solute transport through the formation. The negatively charged clay-mineral surfaces affect both the chemical composition and the binding state of the water molecules in the adjacent pore space. Thus, in a profile across a pore, the composition and the mobility of the porewater vary as a function of the distance from the clay surface. In a simplified way, two water types, namely free, charge-balanced porewater in the central parts of a pore and bound/interlayer water along clay surfaces can be distinguished. Adequate field sampling protocols are needed to preserve core materials from evaporation and oxidation, and to this end well-trained on-site staff is a pre-requisite in order to minimise exposure of the samples to the atmosphere. Porewater extraction from clayrocks requires dedicated methods that are based on different physical principles, including the application of high hydraulic gradients (advective displacement, centrifugation, sampling of in-situ seepages), axial pressure (squeezing), diffusive equilibration (out-diffusion, isotope diffusive exchange, in-situ circulation tests), capillary suction (filter absorption), heating (vacuum distillation), crushing and dilution (aqueous extraction), and outgassing via diffusion (analysis of dissolved noble and reactive gases). Different extraction methods often yield consistent results, but distinct differences may occur if the methods sample different domains of the pore space. The attribution of water extracted by a specific method to a particular porewater reservoir is not always evident, and current research aims at a better understanding of this issue. The suitability of a particular method depends on the properties of the studied clayrock (porosity, degree of cementation, mineralogy) and the parameters of interest (major ions, stable water isotopes, dissolved gases). Each method has its limitations and incurs various kinds of artefacts that may require corrections. It is concluded that there is no single best method to extract the porewater and to analyse the dissolved constituents and isotope composition, and that a method or combination of methods should be selected considering the properties of the studied clayrock.

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.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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