Transient Flow from Tension Infiltrometers I. The Two‐Parameter Equation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tension disk infiltrometer experiments are generally conducted until apparent steady state is reached because most of the methods of analysis are based on Wooding's solution for steady state flux. However, the time necessary to reach steady state may be a penalizing aspect for soils with low permeability and the information contained in the transient stages is not utilized. Moreover, these methods assume homogeneous soil and a uniform initial water content, which may be unrealistic when a large volume of soil is sampled. In this series, we propose and compare several new methods of analysis that are based on the transient stage of axisymmetric infiltration. In the first part, we show that a two‐parameter equation—one term linear in square root of time and one term linear in time—adequately describes the transient flow from the disk infiltrometer for both simulated and laboratory tests. The technique used for the determination of the two coefficients must meet two criteria; it must verify the validity of the two‐term equation throughout the duration of the experiment, and it must account for the early‐time perturbation that is induced by the sand‐contact layer placed between the disk and the soil. We show that the best technique consists in linearizing the data by differentiating cumulative infiltration with respect to the square root of time. Direct nonlinear fitting on cumulative infiltration or infiltration flux is likely to lead to unacceptable errors, either because of the undetected invalidity of the two‐parameter equation or arising from the influence of the contact layer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".