Water Movement and Finger Flow Characterization in Homogeneous Water‐Repellent Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Core Ideas The cumulative infiltration decreased with increasing soil water repellency. Soil water movement in higher water‐repellent levels tended to be more unstable. Finger flow occurred preferentially in the coarser, more water‐repellent soils. Strong correlations of cumulative infiltration and cumulative wetting area were shown. Soil water repellency (SWR) is a widespread property in soils around the world. It influences soil water movement and causes unstable flow. The mechanics of finger flow occurrence in water‐repellent soils are not clearly understood. Slab chamber infiltration experiments consisting of increasing SWR persistence in clay and sandy loam soils were conducted to compare wetting front advancement and mechanics of finger flow development. The temporal variation curves of cumulative infiltration (CI) decreased with an increase in SWR persistence. For wettable soils, the wetting front advanced regularly with time, but for water‐repellent soils, it became unstable and finger flow occurred as the SWR persistence increased. Water movement in soils with higher SWR persistence tended to be more unstable. Water repellency contributed to finger flow development, especially for sandy loam. There were strong correlations among CI, finger length, and the cumulative wetting area. In the strongly, severely, and extremely water‐repellent sandy loam soils, the power function relationship fit better than the linear function. The average soil water content decreased with a higher SWR persistence, which meant that less water was available in the profile. Finger flow development was related to the more severe water‐repellent conditions and tended to be more easily formed in the water‐repellent sandy loam soils than the clay loam soils due to the faster infiltration rate.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".