Fluid Distribution in Porous Media under Microgravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding pore fluid distribution in porous media is an essential task in exploring plant growth under microgravity. This paper presented experimental and modeling investigations on pore fluid distribution at residual saturation in porous media in microgravity. First, experiments were conducted aboard NASA's KC-135 flights, which provided gravity conditions of 1g, 2g, and 0.01 g. Glass beads were used as porous media. Hexadecane, a petroleum compound immiscible with and lighter than water, was used as wetting fluid at residual saturation. Nitrogen freezer was used to solidify the discontinuous Hexadecane ganglia in glass beads to preserve the pore fluid changes during different gravity conditions. Particle separation and increased bulk volume of samples under microgravity were observed. In the modeling phase, a 3D pore network model was developed to investigate the spatial distribution of pore fluid. Cubic packing (the loosest packing) of Ottawa sand was used to represent the particle separation under 0g. The modeling results revealed non-uniform spatial distribution of pore fluid under 0g.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".