Comparison of Tension Infiltrometer, Pressure Infiltrometer, and Soil Core Estimates of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K SAT ) is an important soil property that is difficult to measure. Positive‐head tension infiltrometer (TI) and single‐ring pressure infiltrometer (PI) techniques show promise for measuring K SAT , but there have been few field tests or comparisons with other methods. The TI, PI, and classical undisturbed soil core (SC) methods for measuring K SAT were compared on single‐grain sand, structured loam, and cracking‐clay loam soils under conventional tillage (CT), no‐tillage (NT), and native woodlot (WL) managements. Of the 27 between‐method correlations (3 methods × 3 soils × 3 managements), only four were significant ( P < 0.05). The TI method yielded lower K SAT values under high‐permeability conditions ( K SAT ≥ 10 −4 ms −1 ) relative to the other methods, as evidenced by lower geometric mean K SAT ( K GM ), lower maximum K SAT ( K MAX ), and lower minimum K SAT ( K MIN ) values. The 0.10‐m diam. by 0.10‐m‐long SC method cores may have been too small to yield representative estimates of K SAT in the cracking‐clay loam and in the NT and WL managements of the sand and loam, as indicated by high coefficients of variation (CVs), inconsistent K GM values, or high K MAX values relative to the other methods. Erratic K MAX and K MIN values, along with high CVs, suggest that the 0.10‐m‐diam. PI ring may have been too small to adequately sample the cracking clay loam soil under CT and NT management. Further work appears warranted for developing K SAT measurement methods, interpreting K SAT results, and determining appropriate K SAT methods for various soil types and conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".