MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109764145 · doi:10.1080/02626667.2020.1853132

Revisiting water retention curves for simple hydrological modelling of peat

2020· article· en· W3109764145 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dimitre D. Dimitrov, Peter M. Lafleur

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityNorQuest College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatWater tablePermanent wilting pointSoil scienceSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)GeologyBogEnvironmental scienceMathematicsGroundwaterField capacityGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate modelling of peat water contents (θ) is critical for wetland studies. We modified the Campbell and Van Genuchten soil water retention curves (SWRCs) by replacing their empirical parameters with measurable properties. Combining the water table depth (dWT) into SWRCs, we derived formulae for calculating volumetric θ from dWT, coded in a simple model to test our hypotheses that dWT is a reliable predictor of θ for peat of low and high water holding capacity at near-saturation. We compared our simulations with time-domain reflectometry θ measurements at Mer Bleue bog (Ontario, Canada) and the Western Peatland fen (Alberta, Canada). Constraining Campbell SWRC at extreme drying and waterlogging rather than wilting point and field capacity produced superior results. The Van Genuchten SWRC was approximated by hyperbolic and inverse hyperbolic segments. When simplified, its performance reconciles with that of the modified Campbell SWRC. Overall, our formulae performed well with generalized peat parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological Sciences JournalSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207