MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330162070 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0148

Analyses of groundwater flow and plant evapotranspiration in a vegetated soil slope

2013· article· en· W2330162070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anthony Kwan Leung, C.W.W. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationWater tableHydrology (agriculture)Groundwater rechargeGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceHydrogeologyGroundwater flowSoil waterWater balancePore water pressureGeologySoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringAquiferEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding seasonal hydrogeological responses of vegetated soil slopes is vital to slope stability because pore-water pressure (PWP) varies from positive values upon rainfall in wet seasons to negative values upon plant evapotranspiration (ET) in dry seasons. There are, however, few case histories that report seasonal performance of vegetated soil slopes. In this study, a vegetated slope situated in Hong Kong was instrumented to analyse (i) groundwater flow during rainfall in the wet season and (ii) effects of plant ET on PWP in the dry season. Two- and three-dimensional anisotropic transient seepage analyses are conducted to identify groundwater flow mechanism(s) during a heavy rainstorm. Through water and energy balance calculations, measured plant-induced suction is interpreted with plant characteristic and climatic data. During the rainstorm, substantial recharge of the groundwater table was recorded, likely due to preferential water flow along relict joints and three-dimensional cross-slope groundwater flow. During the dry season, the peak suction induced by plant ET is up to 200 kPa and the depth of influence is shallower than 200% of the root depth. For the range of suctions monitored, root-water uptake is revealed to have been restricted by suction not very significantly and was driven mainly by the climatic variation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations84
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207