ANÁLISE DO MÉTODO DO PERMEÂMETRO DE GUELPH NA DETERMINAÇÃO DA CONDUTIVIDADE HIDRÁULICA SATURADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the method of the Guelph permeameter has, in many situations, shown to provide unrealistic results such as negative values of the hydraulic conductivity. Although this is attributed essentially to soil heterogeneity, other factors inherent to the test method itself can also interfere with the results. The primary objective of the present work is to analyze the performance and the variability of the Guelph permeameter in determining the hydraulic conductivity of sandy soils and other loamy soils when the one-stage or two-stage load method is employed. Inherent difficulties in meeting with the Kfs condition of isotropy in the two-stage load method are evidenced. Notwithstanding, the use of the two-stage load method is still possible when operational errors are minimized. In compensation, the one-stage method is employed in determining only the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs) and only a reduced number of tests is needed. However, the appropriate choice of the parameter a and the height (H) can minimize the erros associated to estimating Kfs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".