Probe Body and Thermal Contact Conductivity Affect Error of Heat Pulse Method Based on Infinite Line Source Approximation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dual probe (DP) method is a widely used method for determining the thermal conductivity (K), the specific heat capacity (c), and the thermal diffusivity (α) of soil, but this method overestimates c, particularly for dry soil. The objective of this study is to examine if the probe body and the thermal contact conductivity (H) lead to biased estimation of the thermal properties by using the DP method. We used the analytical solution for cylindrical heat sources with the finite H value derived by Moench and Evans (1970). For an air-dried sand sample with c = 756 J kg−1 K−1, the experimental estimated c from the infinite line source (ILS) model for DP units, with the heater needles of 3.175 and 1.27 mm, is 953 J kg−1 K−1 and 904 J kg−1 K−1, respectively. For 3.175- and 1.27-mm heater needles, the c estimated by applying the ILS model to temperatures simulated using the Moench and Evans solution is 926 J kg−1 K−1 and 845 J kg−1 K−1, respectively. Simulations suggest that both the existing of the finite probe body and H make contribution to the overestimation of c from the ILS model. The overestimation of c increases with the increase in the radius of the heater needle and decreases with the increase of H value. Using ILS could lead to substantial errors in the estimated c of dry soil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".