MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W150820104

Determining the permeability of soil at Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Gambang Campus using guelph permeameter kit

2010· article· en· W150820104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Ik Fong Ting

Bibliographic record

VenueUMP Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Pahang) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeameterPermeability (electromagnetism)Soil scienceWater contentEnvironmental scienceSoil testSoil waterGeologyGeotechnical engineeringHydraulic conductivityChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The measure of the soil's ability to permit water to flow through its pores or voids is termed as permeability. Different types of soil give different value of permeability because their abilities to permit water to flow through their pores are different. Several factors that affect the permeability of the soil are type of soil, vegetation management, surface moisture, soil compaction, rainfall intensity and temperature. This study was carried out to determine the permeability of the soil and identify the soil classification for ten locations in the compound of Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Gambang Campus. Guelph Permeameter test was used to determine the permeability of soil of each location. The lowest permeability of soil is at Guard house and construction site 2 with the rate of 0 cm/sec while the highest is at sport complex with the rate of 2.19x10 4 cm/sec. The results indicated the slow permeability at the ten locations were due to less voids in the soil structures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUMP Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Pahang)Same topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207