Laboratory Verification of a Proposed New Method to Determine the In-Situ Effective Porosity of Unsaturated Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A laboratory validation of a proposed new method of determining the in-situ effective porosity of unsaturated soils was carried out on unsaturated river sand. The proposed method consists of boring a small diameter hole into the soil and inserting an Amplitude Domain Reflectometry (ADR) probe at the bottom part of the hole. Water is supplied into the hole till saturation and later de-saturated. The water content with time is determined from the ADR probe voltage potential readings. The effective porosity is determined from the difference between the saturated and de-saturated water contents. However, in the laboratory, the water is supplied through the top and bottom parts of the sample. From the experiments the obtained effective porosity ranged from 0.28 to 0.29 for wetting from the top with an average of 0.287 and 0.29 to 0.30 for wetting from the bottom with an average of 0.293. The determined effective porosity ranged from 71.7-73.3% of the real initial porosity of 0.40 of the river sand. The maximum attained degree of saturation during the experiment was 91%. The results indicated that the method will be suitable and useful in determining the effective porosity of medium grained unsaturated soils.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".