MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263013334 · doi:10.1590/01000683rbcs20140360

THREE DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL MACROPOROSITY BY X-RAY MICROTOMOGRAPHY

2015· article· en· W2263013334 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Passoni, Luiz F. Pires, Richard J. Heck, Jadir Aparecido Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersComissão Nacional de Energia NuclearConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsSoil structureCharacterization (materials science)Soil testSoil scienceMaterials scienceMineralogySoil waterGeologyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of the soil pore system represents an important way of characterizing soil structure. Properties such as the shape and number of pores can be determined through soil pore evaluations. This study presents a three-dimensional (3D) characterization of the shape and number of pores of a sub-tropical soil. To do so, a second generation X-ray microtomograph equipped with a plain type detector was employed. A voltage of 120 kV and current of 80 mA was applied to the X-ray tube. The soil samples analyzed were collected at three different depths (0-10, 10-20, and 20-30 cm). The results obtained allowed qualitative (images) and quantitative (3D) analyses of the soil structure, revealing the potential of the microtomographic technique, as well as the study of differences in soil macroporosity at different depths. Macroporosity was 5.14 % in the 0-10 cm layer, 5.10 % in the 10-20 cm layer, and 6.64 % in the 20-30 cm layer. The macroporosity of unclassified pores (UN) was 0.30 % (0-10 and 10-20 cm) and 0.40 % (20-30 cm), while equant pores (EQ) had values of 0.01 % at the three depths under analysis.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Ciência do SoloSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207