Analysis of preferential flow migration in unsaturated transparent soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to realize the visualization of unsaturated preferential flow migration of soil, a column device was designed to carry out unsaturated seepage tests. The transparent soil and digital image processing technology were used to establish the relationship between the normalized pixel intensity and the saturation of transparent soil. On this basis, the effects of the connectivity of the preferential flow path and the rotation angle of the adjacent preferential flow path on the preferential flow migration in unsaturated soils were studied by conducting laboratory model tests. The results showed that it was feasible to characterize the saturation of unsaturated transparent soils based on the intensity of image grayscale pixels. The profile of fully connection preferential flow (O-O type) and upper connection preferential flow (O-C type) presented a T-shape. The saturation of the central axis profile was obviously different from that of the central edge profile. In the lower connection preferential flow path (C-O type), the soil oil pressure and matrix potential could not make the fluid enter the preferential flow path to form the preferential flow, in which the trend of infiltration was consistent with the uniform flow. The stable infiltration rate and the wetting front moving velocity of O-C preferential flow were 1.5 times and 1.4 times of those of the C-O type, respectively. A new preferential flow was formed in the area between adjacent O-C preferential flows. The soil in that area reached higher saturation and the growth rate of saturation decreased with the increase of rotation angle. When the preferential flow rotation angle was 90°, 60° and 30°, the stable infiltration rate was respectively 1.5 times, 1.3 times and 1.2 times that of the uniform flow. As the fluid was affected by gravity, the preferential flow with a small rotation angle only infiltrated horizontally along one side of the path. However, the moving velocity of the wetting front was 1.3 times, 1.4 times, and 1.5 times that of uniform flow, respectively. The interaction between adjacent preferential flows was weakened, so it was difficult to form the new preferential flow.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".