Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This manuscript systematically investigates the effects of gravity during soil‐limited (Stage 2) evaporation from bare soil. Analytical and numerical solutions to the one‐dimensional Richards soil moisture flow equation are developed based on simplified hydraulic functions that depend exponentially on soil water matric potential. Semi‐infinite domains with either freely draining or hydrostatic bottom boundary conditions and finite domains with no‐flow bottom boundary conditions are considered. Cases with gravity are directly compared to those without. The simplified solutions are verified by comparison to numerical solutions with fully realistic soil hydraulic functions for two soils at the extreme ends of the range of possible soil textures. Cumulative evaporation versus time and soil volumetric water content versus depth at selected times are determined for each case from the simplified solutions. These results are reported in terms of non‐dimensional variables that are universal, spanning all soil textures and other conditions. For the semi‐infinite domain cases cumulative evaporation with gravity is reduced by several orders of magnitude for very coarse soils at times of practical interest while gravity has a negligible effect for the finest textures at those times. For the finite domain cases gravity is less important because cumulative evaporation is ultimately limited by the fixed amount of water in the profile.
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".