Dynamics of biogenic gas bubbles in peat: Potential effects on water storage and peat deformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamics of biogenic bubbles in peat soils were studied at a field site in southern Québec, Canada. The maximum gas content measured in this study varied spatially with a maximum seasonal increase in volumetric gas content of 0.15. The size of changes in total gas content of a 1 m deep profile was comparable to the seasonal water storage change. Changes in bubble volume in the saturated zone alter the water table level and, consequently, the water content in the unsaturated zone and the apparent water budget. In highly compressible soils (and floating root mats), buoyancy forces from bubbles also cause relations between the surface and the water table to change. These effects cannot be omitted in modeling the hydrology of peatlands. Our results indicate a great spatial variability of trapped bubbles. Using pressure transducers sealed to the surface, we found pressure deviations indicating small areas closed off by bubbles clogging the pores. The hydrological influence of these areas may be considerable as they may restrict or deflect water flows. Open pipe piezometers did not show these pressure deviations, possibly because the closed zones were too small to influence the head in pipes or because of less amount of gas close to the pipe screen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".