An iterative program to back-analyze grain-size distribution from a predetermined soil–water characteristic curve
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous methods for predicting unsaturated soil properties based on basic soil parameters have been introduced to reduce the cost of unsaturated soil testing. This research proposes an unsaturated soil estimation program that uses a predetermined soil–water characteristic curve (SWCC) to predict the grain-size distribution (GSD) using computer iteration. The results indicate back-calculating a GSD from a given SWCC is possible, and that different GSDs can produce the same SWCC. A Monte Carlo approach examining variations of the GSD was conducted and associated packing porosities are provided. The program was tested on coarse- and fine-grained soils to determine the program’s capability and indicate it is appropriate for samples dominated by silty sand and silt but not clay. The back-analysis program described here could bypass the arduous testing phase of multiple soils to find a suitable SWCC for a capillary break layer as it can start with a predetermined SWCC and estimate a suitable GSD. In such efforts, the most important characteristic (i.e., strength or stiffness) of a soil must be determined when considering the GSD required because an infinite number of GSDs with similar properties could produce the same SWCC.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it