Field Study of Beach Water Content as a Guide to Wind Erosion Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind erosion is strongly governed by water adsorbed onto the surfaces of sedimentary particles and held by capillarity in lenses at interparticle contacts. Unfortunately, conventional measurement techniques cannot adequately characterize the distribution of surface pore water content over a continuous, horizontal plane. The present field study, carried out on two beaches on the north shore of Lake Ontario, confirms that the water table level plays an important role in governing this distribution in the absence of precipitation. The maximum extent of the capillary fringe was determined to be about 400–500 mm, consistent with prediction from a physically based model for which the pore radius is assumed to be one-fifth of the mean grain diameter. The brightness of the sand surface also was confirmed to be a good indicator of the amount of pore water present. A simple remote sensing method is described that is nondestructive and continuously tracks pore water variability at the beach surface through time and space. In further testing of the method developed by Cheryl McKenna Neuman and G. Langston, this study examines the dependency of the accuracy of measurement upon the scale of its application.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".