Measurement of gas diffusion through soils: comparison of laboratory methods
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
Gas movement through soils is important for ecosystems and engineering in many ways such as for microbial and plant respiration, passive methane oxidation in landfill covers and oxidation of mine residues. Diffusion is one of the most important gas movement processes and the determination of the diffusion coefficient is a crucial step in any study. Five laboratory methods used for measuring the relative gas diffusion coefficient (D(s)/D(o)) were compared using a loamy sand, a porous media commonly found in agricultural fields and in several engineered structures, such as in landfill final covers. In the absence of macropores, all methods gave rather similar values of D(s)/D(o). Methods allowing the study of microscale variability indicated that the presence of macropores highly influenced gas movement, thus the value of D(s)/D(o), which, near a macropore may be one order of magnitude higher than in regions without macropores. Repacked columns do not allow the study of heterogeneity in D(s)/D(o). Natural spatial variability in D(s)/D(o) due to water distribution and preferential pathways can only be studied in large systems, but these systems are difficult to handle. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it