A Review and Evaluation of Predictive Models for Thermal Conductivity of Sands at Full Water Content Range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effective thermal conductivity (λeff) of sands is a critical parameter required by applications in geothermal energy resources, geo-technique and geo-environment and in science disciplines. However, the availability of the reliable λeff data is not sufficient and predictive models are usually used in practice to estimate λeff. These predictive models may vary in complexity, flexibility, accuracy and applications. There is no universal model that can be applied to all soil types and full water content range. The choice of different models may result in distinctive estimates of λeff. The objectives of this study were to conduct an extensive review of the thermal conductivity models of sands and evaluate their performance with a large dataset consisting of various sand types from dry to saturation. A total of 14 models to predict λeff of sands were evaluated with a large compiled dataset consisting of 1025 measurements on 62 sands from 20 studies. The results show that the models of Chen 2008 (CS2008) and Zhang et al. 2016 (ZN2016) give the best estimates of thermal conductivity of sands, with Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency = 0.9 and RMSE = 0.3 W m−1 °C−1. These two models are potentially applied to accurately estimate thermal conductivity of sands of different types.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".