MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010718786 · doi:10.2134/jeq2010.0056

Modeling Liquid Distribution in Soil after Pocket Injection

2011· article· en· W2010718786 on OpenAlexafffund
Binxin Wu, Ying Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsLoamSoil waterInfiltration (HVAC)Soil scienceLiquid manureEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)ManureGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on liquid distribution after injection of liquid manure is important to the evaluation of injection methods and the design of injection tools. A two-dimensional numerical model was developed to predict liquid distribution in the soil around a soil pocket. Model outputs are the lateral spread (L), vertical thickness (T), and cross-sectional area (A) of the liquid infiltration zone. Values of L do not vary with injection depth, whereas T and A increase with the injection depth. These model outputs are sensitive to effective saturated soil content (the difference between saturated and initial water contents). At greater effective saturated water content, values of L, T, and A are lower. Values of L vary from 0.13 to 0.23 m, values ofT vary from 0.09 to 0.19 m for injection depths from 0.05 to 0.15 m, and values of A vary from 0.009 to 0.030 m2. The model results were compared with field measurements taken from six forage fields with sandy loam and clay soils. The model better predicts L than T and A. The relative average error between the predictions and field measurements vary from 10.3 to 101.9%.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207