Feldspathic sandstone addition and its impact on hydraulic properties of sandy soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feldspathic sandstone could be used as an effective conditioner to improve the physical quality of sandy soil, and increase the crop yield there. To determine the effects of feldspathic sandstone content on soil hydraulic properties in a sandy soil, the present study added 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (no sandy soil) of feldspathic sandstone to sandy soil. Changes in hydraulic parameters were investigated and the results showed addition of feldspathic sandstone increased saturated water content by 37%–61% and field capacity by 29%–44%, and decreased saturated hydraulic conductivity from 10.19 to 0.58 cm h −1 of the sandy soil. Further data analysis demonstrated that with increasing content of feldspathic sandstone, the parameter n of soil water retention curve in Van Genuchten model dropped from 1.807 to 1.333. The same decreasing trend is detected in parameter a of infiltration rate (3.841–0.703) in Kostiakov formula (i = at − b ) and parameter a 1 of wetting front (6.901–1.174) in the empirical equation (X = a 1 t b 1 ). In terms of hydraulic parameters, 40% feldspathic sandstone and 60% sandy soil, optimally matching indices of loess soil, were the best mixing ratio for sandy land restoration.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".