MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122274954 · doi:10.1139/t10-098

An empirical model for the evaluation of the degree of saturation of shallow soils in relation to rainfalls

2011· article· en· W2122274954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberto Valentino, Lorella Montrasio, Gian Luca Losi, Marco Bittelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegree of saturationSaturation (graph theory)Soil waterWater contentSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceCalibrationDegree (music)Hydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of shallow soils water content is very important in many fields, and different hydrological models are widely applied to simulate field-scale water flow and soil water content. The degree of saturation of a shallow soil is a time-varying variable, depending on different weather conditions. In many applications, it is useful to directly correlate the soil degree of saturation to time series of rainfall amount. This paper presents a simplified empirical model, which allows for computation of the soil degree of saturation using readily available climate data on air temperature and rainfall depths. The model is tested with in situ measurements of soil water content collected at three sites in the Emilia Romagna region in northern Italy. The experimental data are compared with the results obtained from the simplified model over an observation period of almost 5 years. The model has been used to generate soil water content time series at different depths and requires a separate calibration for each depth where the degree of saturation is computed. A discussion on the model’s calibration is also carried out to clarify the model sensitivity to the different parameters and the choice of input data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207