Influence of Saline Pore Fluid on Soil Behavior during Evaporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saline conditions govern soil behavior during evaporation, thereby affecting the water budget in semi-arid regions. This research examined the effects of saline pore fluid on soil behavior during evaporation. The results indicated volumetric reductions of about 5% for silty sand and about 15% for lean clay. The evaporative flux for silty sand decreased from 26 mg/m2∙s to 22 mg/m2∙s in StageII, remained at a constant flux in StageIII, and decreased to 13 mg/m2∙s in StageIV. The air entry and residual suction values were found to be 5 kPa and 100 kPa, respectively, and the total suction of about 5000 kPa merged with matric suction near the Stage II/Stage III boundary. The swell–shrink curve (SSC) was J-shaped with the only void ratio decrease in Stage II. In contrast, the evaporative flux for lean clay decreased from 30 mg/m2∙s to 15 mg/m2∙s in StageII, to 10 mg/m2∙s in StageIII, and then to 5 mg/m2∙s in StageIV. The air entry and residual suction values were 5 kPa and 2000 kPa, respectively, and the total suction during Stage II and Stage III ranged from 1000 kPa to 6000 kPa, with an average value of 3500 kPa. The SSC showed a major void ratio decrease in Stage II, marginal decrease in Stage III, and no decrease in Stage IV. Under high demand, the evaporative flux for silty sand was constant at 180 mg/m2∙s in StageIII and decreased to 50 mg/m2∙s in Stage IV, whereas it decreased for the lean clay from 230 mg/m2∙s to 145 mg/m2∙s in StageII, to 95 mg/m2∙s in StageIII, and then to 25 mg/m2∙s in StageIV. For both soils, the total water loss was found to be six times higher than that under low demand.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".