MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105303037 · doi:10.1002/hyp.7827

A simple expression for the bulk field capacity of a sloping soil horizon

2010· article· en· W2105303037 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E. D. Soulis, James R. Craig, Vincent Fortin, G. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgricultural Research Service
KeywordsPedotransfer functionField capacityWater contentWater tableSoil scienceDrainageSoil textureField (mathematics)Hydrology (agriculture)Pressure headRichards equationGeologySoil waterWater retention curveEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringHydraulic conductivityMathematicsGroundwaterEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Field capacity is a commonly used soil parameter in surface water hydrological models, loosely defined as the moisture content of a soil after drainage. The most commonly applied expression for field capacity is defined as the remaining water in a vertical soil column subject to 1/3 atm. of pressure head. While this quantification is sufficient in some cases, the definition is not consistent with the use of bulk field capacity in calculations of lateral drainage from hillslopes, as required by some surface soil parameterizations, nor does it address additional complications arising from differences in soil texture or sample size. Here, a simple alternative expression for bulk field capacity in a sloping or vertical soil is derived directly from Richards equation with the use of the Brooks‐Corey characteristics. It is demonstrated that this expression is consistent with data acquired from vertical soil columns, but may be extended to additional situations commonly found in surface water models and land surface schemes. The calculation of bulk field capacity requires only the Brooks‐Corey pore size distribution index, soil air‐entry pressure, and hillslope length and slope, and may be considered a physically based alternative to pedotransfer function or lookup table approaches. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Crown in the right of Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207