DECOVALEX-2019 project: Task A - modElliNg Gas INjection ExpERiments (ENGINEER)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a repository for radioactive waste hosted in a clay formation, hydrogen and other gases may be generated due to the corrosion of metallic materials under anoxic conditions, the radioactive decay of waste and the radiolysis of water. If the gas production rate exceeds the gas diffusion rate within the pores of the clay, a discrete gas phase will form and accumulate until its pressure becomes large enough to exceed the entry pressure of the surrounding material. \nThe purpose of Task A under DECOVALEX-2019 is to better understand the processes governing the advective movement of gas in both low-permeability argillaceous repository host rocks and clay-based engineered barriers. Special attention is given to the mechanisms controlling gas entry, flow and pathway sealing and their impact on the performance of the engineered clay barrier. Previous work suggests gas flow may be accompanied by the creation of dilatant pathways whose properties change temporally and spatially within the medium. Thus, new numerical representations for the quantitative prediction of gas migration fluxes through argillaceous rock formations have been developed. These provide an invaluable tool with which to assess the impact of gas flow on repository layout and therefore design of any future facility. In addition, experience gained through this task is of direct relevance to other clay-based engineering issues where immiscible gas flow is a consideration including shale gas, hydrocarbon migration, carbon capture and storage and landfill design. \nTask A is organised into four steps, starting with the code development (stage 0) and followed by the modelling of a 1D gas flow test (stage 1) and a spherical gas flow test (stage 2). Then, the previous models are applied to a natural argillaceous material (stage 3). \nThis report summarises the outcomes of work in Task A (stages 0 and 1) with work conducted from May 2016 to March 2018 and provides a brief overview of the experimental data, the current task structure and a synthesis of the ongoing work of the participating modelling teams as of March 2018.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".