Estimation of the Dual‐Permeability Model Parameters using Tension Disk Infiltrometer and Guelph Permeameter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A determination of the parameters describing the soil hydraulic properties of matrix and macropore domains and mass exchange between these domains is crucial when preferential water flow in structured soils is simulated using the dual‐permeability model. This study focused on estimating the parameters of the radially symmetric dual‐permeability model from cumulative infiltration measured in the surface horizon of a Haplic Luvisol. While parameters obtained from the numerical inversion of the tension disk infiltration, using the single‐porosity flow model in HYDRUS 2D/3D, were used to describe the matrix domain, the parameters characterizing the macropore domain and mass exchange between domains were estimated using the Guelph permeameter infiltration and the dual‐permeability flow model in HYDRUS 2D/3D. The mass transfer coefficient between the two pore domains affected the simulated water regime considerably, and subsequently, the calibrated value of the saturated hydraulic conductivity in the macropore domain, K sf A less significant impact of the aggregate shape factor was observed due to a low range of possible values compared with the other two parameters, which either varied within orders of magnitude (the effective saturated hydraulic conductivity of the interface between the two pore domains, K sa ) or were squared (the characteristic length of an aggregate, a ). The K sf values increased when mass exchange decreased (when a increased and K sa decreased). Since both parameters are mutually correlated and therefore have a similar impact on simulated data, we suggest that a be determined independently, and K sa and K sf should be simultaneously optimized when the parameters of the dual‐permeability model are evaluated using the presented experimental procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".