Exploring Efficiency of Biochar in Enhancing Water Retention in Soils with Varying Grain Size Distributions using ANN Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, incentives have been provided in many countries, including Canada and Denmark, to produce biochar for construction usage. This is done because biochar is carbon negative and can help achieve the emission reduction goal of 2030. This technical note aims to analyze the efficiency of biochar in soils with varying grain size distribution for enhancing water retention capacity (WRC). The combinations of biochar content and grain size distributions corresponding to the maximum and minimum efficiency were explored. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) based model for predicting Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) as a function of soil suction and grain size distribution was developed. A new factor (the ratio of fine (silt + clay) and coarse (sand) content) was proposed for the interpretation of the efficiency of biochar in soils. The newly developed model is able to predict SWCC reasonably well. Biochar amendment is found to influence both dry and wet sides of soils with a clay content lower than threshold content (6–8%). Beyond threshold content, the influence of biochar appears to reduce. However, in the case of high sand content soils (90%), the NWC value on the drier side is generally higher as compared to soils with lower sand content. Based on sensitivity analysis, it was found that the ratio of fine to sand content is the most influential, while biochar content is the least influential.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".