Geosynthetic clay liner research and design application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of factors relevant to assessing the equivalence of GCLs and the design of composite liner systems in municipal solid waste landfills are examined. It is shown that the relationship between applied stress and final bulk GCL void ratio depends on the type of GCL. It is also shown that the hydraulic conductivity and diffusion coefficient of GCLs can be directly related to the final GCL bulk void ratio. The transmissivity of the interface between a geomembrane and GCL is discussed in the context of leakage calculations. Finally, this information is used to compare a GCL system with the standard Ontario single composite liner design and it is shown that for the conditions examined, the GCL system performs as well, if not better, than the standard design with respect to both inorganic and organic contaminants. / On examine un certain nombre de facteurs pertinents pour évaluer l'équivalence des géosynthétiques bentonitiques (GSB) et la construction d'étanchéité composites pour les centres de stockage de déchets. On montre que la relation entre la contrainte appliquée et le volume des vides final du GSB dépendent du type de GSB testé. On montre également que la conductivité hydraulique et le coefficient de diffusion du GSB peuvent être directement reliés au volume des vides final du GSB. On discute la transmissivité d'interface entre un GSB et une géomembrane pour le calcul de débits de fuite. Finalement, cette information est utilisée pour comparer un GSB avec l'étanchéité composite utilisée en Ontario, et on montre que dans les conditions testées, le GSB se comporte aussi bien sinon mieux que l'étanchéité composite classique, vis à vis des contaminants organiques et inorganiques.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".