MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005789494 · doi:10.1002/hyp.6795

Field and laboratory estimates of pore size properties and hydraulic characteristics for subarctic organic soils

2007· article· en· W2005789494 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sean K. Carey, William L. Quinton, Neil Goeller

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsInfiltrometerHydraulic conductivityMacroporeSoil waterPorositySoil scienceInfiltration (HVAC)Pore water pressureWater retention curveSaturation (graph theory)Environmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)GeologyMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringChemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Characterizing active and water‐conducting porosity in organic soils in both saturated and unsaturated zones is required for models of water and solute transport. There is a limitation, largely due to lack of data, on the hydraulic properties of unsaturated organic soils in permafrost regions, and in particular, the relationship between hydraulic conductivity and pressure head. Additionally, there is uncertainty as to what fraction of the matrix and what pores conduct water at different pressure heads, as closed and dead‐end pores are common features in organic soil. The objectives of this study were to determine the water‐conducting porosity of organic soils for different pore radii ranges using the method proposed by Bodhinayake et al. (2004) [Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:760–769] and compare these values to active pore size distributions from resin‐impregnated laboratory thin sections and pressure plate analysis. Field experiments and soil samples were completed in the Wolf Creek Research Basin, Yukon. Water infiltration rates were measured 16 times using a tension infiltrometer (TI) at 5 different pressure heads from − 150 to 0 mm. This data was combined with Gardiner's (1958) exponential unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function to provide water‐conducting porosity for different pore‐size ranges. Total water‐conducting porosity was 1·1 × 10−4, which accounted for only 0·01% of the total soil volume. Active pore areas obtained from 2‐D image analysis ranged from 0·45 to 0·60, declining with depth. Macropores accounted for approximately 65% of the water flux at saturation, yet all methods suggest macropores account for only a small fraction of the total porosity. Results among the methods are highly equivocal, and more research is required to reconcile field and laboratory methods of pore and hydraulic characteristics. However, this information is of significant value as organic soils in permafrost regions are poorly characterized in the literature. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations88
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207