Analysis of Saturation Risk in Sprinkler Irrigation: Case of Cherfech Irrigation Perimeter in Tunisia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is targeted to the assessment of the saturation risk in sprinkler irrigation. For this purpose, in situ field trials were carried out to infer the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and sorptivity (S) using the disc infiltrometer method. Since the measured values of Ks are very close to prescribed application rate, caution is required. In a first step, the pressure head at the wetting front (hf) and the useful porosity (θs – θi) are assumed to be constant. Thus, the logarithmic derivation of the sorptivity provides a relation between relative variations of S and Ks. The ponding time (Ts) is estimated from Green and Ampt (1911) and Philip (1957b) infiltration equations. The risk of saturation is deemed to be inexistent inasmuch as simulated values of Ts are greater than the irrigation times practiced in the zone. In a second step, the values of the pressure head at the wetting front and saturated water content were assumed to be variable with soil texture. Simulations of the ponding time were carried out based on Rawls and al. (1981) data. For the recommended sprinkler spacing in the Cherfech perimeter (12 m × 12 m), the simulations show a good agreement between Ts values generated from Green and Ampt and Philip equations for Ks ranging from 1.5 to 6 mm/h. Moreover, it was established that saturation risk due to a gradual texture variation is virtually inexistent in the conditions prevailing in Cherfech perimeter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".