Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microporosity structure of soil provides important information in understanding the shear strength, compressibility, water-retention ability, and hydraulic conductivity of soils. It is a soil characteristic that depends on sample preparation method and wetting–drying history. A comprehensive study of the microporosity structure of a lean clay with sand was conducted in this research to investigate variations of the microporosity structure during compaction, saturation, and drying processes. Scanning electron microscopy was used to observe the microporosity structure of soil sample surfaces. Mercury intrusion porosimetry was used to measure the microporosity structure quantitatively by showing the relationship between cumulative pore volumes and pore radius. The experimental results show that a dual-porosity structure (i.e., interaggregate pores and intra-aggregate pores) forms during the compaction process. The interaggregate pores are compressible and the associated volume is closely related to the final void ratio of the compacted sample. Changes to interaggregate pores is dominant during compaction, but changes to intra-aggregate pores is dominant during saturation and drying. Based on the experimental results, a dual-porosity structure model was developed by relating the pore-size distribution to the void ratio. Consequently, the pore-size distribution at any void ratio can be predicted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".