An evaluation of air permeability measurements to characterize the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil reclamation covers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huang, M., Rodger, H. and Barbour, S. L. 2015. An evaluation of air permeability measurements to characterize the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil reclamation covers. Can. J. Soil Sci. 95: 15–26. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of soil covers used in land reclamation is known to change over time as the result of weathering processes. Guelph permeameter (GP) measurements have been used to track the evolution of Ks for soil covers at an oil sands mine near Ft. McMurray, Alberta. Although successful, the method was time consuming and consequently a rapid method of estimating Ks based on in situ air permeability measurements was developed. The objectives of this study were: (1) to use air permeability measurements to characterize the spatial variations of Ks for typical reclamation soils and (2) to compare air permeability measurements to direct measurements obtained through laboratory and GP measurements. The results highlight that the values of Ks estimated from measured air permeability values were higher than the values of Ks measured directly using the GP. This is likely due to swelling of clay soils or air-entrapment during GP measurements. Although the magnitude was over-estimated, the variability of Ks was captured by the air permeability measurements. Consequently, a limited program of comparative GP and air permeameter measurements could be used to more rapidly characterize the Ks of reclamation covers over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".