MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334037568 · doi:10.2166/wst.2014.259

Research on the infiltration processes of lawn soils of the Babao River in the Qilian Mountain

2014· article· en· W2334037568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
LI Guang-wen, Qi Feng, FuPing Zhang, Cheng Aifang

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShaanxi Normal University
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)LawnSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)PermeameterEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyHydraulic conductivityGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a Guelph Permeameter, the soil water infiltration processes were analyzed in the Babao River of the Qilian Mountain in China. The results showed that the average soil initial infiltration and the steady infiltration rates in the upstream reaches of the Babao River are 1.93 and 0.99 cm/min, whereas those of the middle area are 0.48 cm/min and 0.21 cm/min, respectively. The infiltration processes can be divided into three stages: the rapidly changing stage (0-10 min), the slowly changing stage (10-30 min) and the stabilization stage (after 30 min). We used field data collected from lawn soils and evaluated the performances of the infiltration models of Philip, Kostiakov and Horton with the sum of squared error, the root mean square error, the coefficient of determination, the mean error, the model efficiency and Willmott's index of agreement. The results indicated that the Kostiakov model was most suitable for studying the infiltration process in the alpine lawn soils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207