MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041878264 · doi:10.1177/0734242x04045429

Assessing the Use of Poplar Tree Systems as a Landfill Evapotranspiration Barrier with the SHAW Model

2004· article· en· W2041878264 on OpenAlexaffabout
GK Preston, R. A. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueWaste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceTranspirationSoil waterDrainageWater balanceLeachateHydrology (agriculture)Temperate climateInterceptionLysimeterWater contentSoil scienceEcologyGeologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of poplar tree systems (PTS) as evapotranspiration barriers on decommissioned landfills is gaining attention as an option for leachate management. This study involved field-testing the Simultaneous Heat and Water (SHAW) model for its ability to reliably estimate poplar transpiration, volumetric soil water content, and soil temperature at a landfill located in southern Ontario, Canada. The model was then used to estimate deep drainage and to ascertain the influence of a young PTS on the soil water balance of the landfill cover. The SHAW model tended to underestimate poplar transpiration [mean difference (MD) ranged from 0.33 to 3.55 mm on a daily total basis] and overestimate volumetric soil water content by up to 0.10 m3 m(-3). The model estimated soil temperature very well, particularly in the upper 1 m of the landfill cover (MD ranged from -0.1 to 1.6 x degrees C in this layer). The SHAW model simulations showed that deep drainage decreased appreciably with the presence of a young PTS largely through increased interception of rainfall, and that PTS have a good potential to act as effective evapotranspiration barriers in northern temperate climate zones.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular EconomySame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207