A hillslope‐scale experiment to measure lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most challenging parameters in hillslope‐ and watershed‐scale, distributed, hydrologic models is the lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K s ). In this paper, we present a methodology to determine the hillslope‐scale lateral K s above a moderately deep sloping restrictive layer in an 18 × 35 m hillslope plot using perched water level measurements and drain tile outflow data. The hillslope‐scale lateral K s was compared to small‐scale K s measured with small soil cores and the Guelph permeameter. Our results show that small‐scale K s measurements underestimate the actual hillslope‐scale K s . The hillslope‐scale K s measurements were 13.7, 4.1, and 3.2 larger than small soil core measurements in the A, B, and E horizons, respectively. We argue that the gap between small‐scale and hillslope‐scale K s within the same porous medium is foremost a measurement problem. Data analysis provided the K s distribution with depth, showing a sharp decrease in K s within the first 0.1 m of the soil and an exponential decline in K s below 0.1 m. The distribution of K s with depth was best described by a double‐exponential relationship. Overall, results indicate the importance of macroporosity, perhaps of biological origin, in determining K s at a hillslope scale.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it