Water infiltration through openings in a vertical plane under static and boundary conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental setup was designed to test the effect of water deposition rate and pressure difference on the ingress of water through deficiencies. A number of round deficiencies (1mm, 4mm and 8mm diameter) were installed in a vertical polycarbonate plate, and subjected to a range of pressure differences (0, 200, 400, 600, 800Pa) and two water spray rates which are typically used in watertightness testing (2.0 and 3.4 L/min.m²). The infiltration rate was measured accurately by means of level sensors in collection troughs. This paper describes the phenomenology of the processes that govern the infiltration of water, and discusses the balance of forces that act on the water at the deficiency. The surface tension of the meniscus on the interior side of the deficiency (minus the capillary and hydrostatic pressure) defines a threshold pressure difference before infiltration will occur. The measurements confirmed the expected processes, but the pressure threshold levels for infiltration to occur supersede the calculated pressure levels. For each water spray rate the infiltration rates could be fitted to a power law, which indicates that the runoff pattern cannot be quantified as a constant hydrostatic water column.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".