Experimental study on the effects of fluid viscosity on the depositional patterns of filling material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stratigraphic texture in land reclamation areas is predominantly determined by fill deposition patterns. Understanding the formation mechanisms of these patterns is crucial for minimizing weak interlayers and ensuring the long-term stability of sedimentary strata. Therefore, this study employed visualizable experiments using carboxymethyl cellulose solutions and colored sand to investigate the effects of fluid viscosity on the deposition of filling materials, leading to the proposal of three typical deposition patterns in static water across different viscosities. The results indicate that medium-viscosity fluids promote the formation of thick, weak interlayers during reclamation under quiescent water conditions. Under identical conditions, the thickness of weak interlayers in the 1.1 mPa s group did not exceed 8 mm, whereas localized zones in the 50 mPa s group exhibited thicknesses exceeding 50 mm. No weak interlayers formed at viscosities above 200 mPa s. This study elucidates the formation mechanisms of weak interlayers in filling strata from the perspective of fluid viscosity. It also provides new insights into the origin of interlayered and lenticular structures in broader geological contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".