Performance of geotextile roofing felts and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bounce and penetrometer resistance (PR) of a cricket pitch for three different crack-control conditions was investigated. In total, 15 miniature cricket pitches were prepared using the conventional procedure, natural grass roots and geotextile roofing felts combined with varying proportions of fine sand and bentonite clay. The rebound ball height and ground PRs were measured with a designed bounce meter and pocket penetrometer, respectively. The properties of the pitch soils (e.g. crack width, moisture content and field densities) were also measured. The results of the test programme indicated that the pitch with the geotextile crack-control system provided a higher coefficient of restitution (CoR) and PR than the other two systems. The test results also suggested that, in order to reduce significant growth of crack widths to provide a good cricket pitch, the clay content under geotextile roofing felt should be kept at 50–65%. Several equations relating the CoR and PR with crack width and the physical properties of the pitch soil were developed for use in pitch characterisation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".