Determinação da condutividade hidráulica não saturada de solos residuais com o permeâmetro Guelph e ensaios de laboratório
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic conductivities of three non-saturated soils of the Viçosa region were studied with field tests, using the Guelph permeameter, and laboratory tests. In the field, the tests were performed with one and two hydraulic head heights. The corresponding results were analyzed with theoretical models proposed by REYNOLDS and ELRICK (1985). In the laboratory, water retention curves and saturated hydraulic conductivities of the soils were determined, with which variation of the hydraulic conductivities with suction were obtained using VAN GENUCHTEN (1980) and GARDNER (1958) empirical formulations. Finally, the non-saturated hydraulic conductivities obtained with the Guelph permeameter and the ones determined in the laboratory were compared. With the exception of soil 03, in which the walls of the hole made to execute the field test smeared, the saturated hydraulic conductivities values obtained in the field and in the laboratory were similar. With respect to the hydraulic conductivities variation with suction, it was verified that field and laboratory results agreed better when GARDNER (1958) model was used to represent the water retention curves than when the VAN GENUCHTEN (1980) model was used.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".