Validity of Assuming Equilibrium Between Liquid Water and Vapor for Simulating Evaporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The standard assumption used in evaporation theory that at any location in a soil water vapor density is equal to the value in thermodynamic equilibrium with the liquid water has recently been questioned. This paper defines precise criteria for nonequilibrium to occur during evaporation in soils. In doing so a physically based model of the pore transfer coefficient critical to quantifying the degree of nonequilibrium is developed. The likelihood of departure from the equilibrium assumption for various soil textures and temperature conditions, including the extreme case of surface fire, is presented. Furthermore the pore transfer coefficient is incorporated into steady‐state nonequilibrium simulations of evaporation from a coarse sand under field conditions and compared with the corresponding equilibrium simulation. Outside of the narrow subsurface evaporation zone there were no significant differences between the nonequilibrium and equilibrium simulations. Since nonequilibrium effects were most likely to be seen with the coarse sand abandoning the standard assumption in future work is unnecessary, and all previous work based on it need not be questioned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".