MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7008657916

A capillarity-advection model for gas flow through clays

2007· dissertation· en· W7008657916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2007
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)BentoniteGas pressureFlow (mathematics)InletBack pressureWork (physics)Flow resistance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas flow through compacted clays is a topic being actively researched throughout the world.The driving force behind this research is the isolation and long term storage of spent nuclear fuel.Previous researchers at the University of Manitoba identified that gas flowed through clay by advectively pushing water through the clay until a continuous gas pathway has formed.The work completed for this thesis expands on this understanding through a laboratory testing program.Samples of a 50/50 mixture of sand and bentonite clay, also known as buffer material, was compacted into a 50 mm diameter by 24 mm high test cell at three dry densities and various degrees of saturation.A small gas pressure (200 kPa) was applied on one end of the specimen (denoted the outlet side) and a larger pressure was maintained on the other side of the specimen (denoted the inlet side).Both pressures were maintained until a rapid increase was noted on the outlet side of the specimen, this increase has been termed gas breakthrough.A total of 19 tests were completed to assess the degree of a saturation at which there was no resistance to gas breakthrough.An additional 39 tests was completed to assess the relationship between the applied gas pressure difference and the time required for breakthrough to occur.Results from tests in which the air phase was continuous indicate that at lower dry densities a higher degree of saturation is required to provide resistance to gas breakthrough.The constant pressure tests indicate that breakthrough can occur at gas pressure differences much lower than those identified by stepped tests performed elsewhere.A clear relationship between the applied pressure difference and the time required to breakthrough was not identified in tests on unsaturated specimens.An approximately inverse relationship was observed in saturated specimens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→