MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290740635 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v6n1p88

Influence of Lead Pollution on Cohesive Soil Erodibility using Jet Erosion Tests

2016· article· en· W2290740635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mina M. Salah, Abdul‐Sahib T. Al‐Madhhachi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterErosionEnvironmental sciencePollutionLead (geology)Soil scienceEnvironmental engineeringChemistryGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="1Body">Recent researches were investigated the high concentrations of Lead in Baghdad soils due to the emissions from Leaded fuel of cars, generators, and the industrials. These high concentrations in addition to their impact on human health may impact on the landscape and streambanks and may cause significant issues on soil erodibility. The erosion rate of cohesive soil was usually estimated using two alternative models, excess shear stress model which is depended on two major soil parameters: the critical shear stress, <em>τ<sub>c</sub></em>, and the erodibility coefficient, <em>k<sub>d</sub></em>, and Wilson model which is depended on two mechanistic soil parameters: <em>b<sub>0</sub></em> and <em>b<sub>1</sub></em>. A new miniature version of Jet Erosion Test (“mini” JET) was performed to derive both model parameters. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of Lead pollution on cohesive soil erodibility using “mini” JET under controlled laboratory setups to predict soil erodibility. In order to observe the Lead contamination on soil erodibility, soil samples were mixed with different quantities of Lead concertation and the samples were packed at ASTM standard mold on two different bulk densities. Results show that the Lead pollution increased soil erodibility when the concentration of Lead increased. An inverse relationship between excess shear stress parameters <em>k<sub>d</sub></em> and <em>τ<sub>c</sub></em> was observed as well as between Wilson model parameters <em>b<sub>0</sub></em> and <em>b<sub>1</sub></em>. The Wilson model parameters were closely resembled the empirical excess shear stress parameters with benefit that Wilson model parameters are mechanistic parameters.</p>

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207