MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969746969 · doi:10.1139/t2012-062

Estimation of water retention curve of granular soils from particle-size distribution — a Bayesian probabilistic approach

2012· article· en· W1969746969 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C.F. Chiu, W. M. Yan, Ka‐Veng Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Hong KongNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSoil waterMathematicsStandard deviationStatisticsPredictabilitySoil scienceParticle (ecology)Particle-size distributionPolynomialFunction (biology)Probabilistic logicBayesian probabilityParticle sizeGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes two empirical relationships to estimate the parameters of van Genuchten’s formula for modeling the water retention curve from the particle-size distribution. The relationships are determined by the Bayesian probabilistic method for selecting the most plausible class of models based on a database of 90 soil samples. The highest plausibility model among the selected relationships shows that the parameter α can be expressed as a first-order function of the particle size at 50% passing (d 50 ) and parameter n is expressed as a third-order polynomial of the reciprocal of the standard deviation of geometric mean particle size (σ g ). The predictability of proposed relationships for other soils outside the calibrated database is also presented. It is found that the model prediction is highly consistent with the measurements for sands. However it only matches well with the measurements in the low suction regime for soils with at least 20% of fines content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations71
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207