MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1627400990 · doi:10.1029/2004wr003407

Parameter estimation using the falling head infiltration model: Simulation and field experiment

2005· article· en· W1627400990 on OpenAlexaff
Takele B. Zeleke, Bingcheng Si

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)Hydraulic conductivityHydraulic headUniquenessSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceEstimation theoryInverseMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyStatisticsSoil waterMeteorologyMathematical analysisGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil hydraulic parameters have high spatial variability. A large number of measurements are needed to characterize these parameters in a field. Therefore there is a need to develop quicker and cheaper methods to determine soil hydraulic parameters. The objective of this study was to examine the uniqueness of the Kfs (field saturated hydraulic conductivity) and α (inverse macroscopic capillary length scale) parameters obtained through inverting the falling head infiltration model. Five simulated scenarios were imposed on the cumulative infiltration data [L(t)] during the inverse procedure. The uniqueness of the Kfs and α estimates under each scenario was studied. In situ infiltration data were used to verify the scenario that provided unique parameter estimates. It appears that the falling head infiltration model can be used to simultaneously estimate the Kfs and α parameters when estimates (or published values) of the α parameter for the site are available.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207