Comparación de tres métodos de infiltración para calcular el balance hídrico del suelo, en la Cuenca del río Suquiapa, El Salvador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"La infiltración del agua en el suelo juega un papel fundamental en el ciclo hidrológico. Dependiendo de las condiciones geológicas, puede permanecer en el suelo en forma de humedad; escurrir como flujo subsuperficial y aflorar como una naciente efímera; o recargar el acuífero, entre otros. Aquí presentamos una comparación de los valores de la recarga potencial para una misma cuenca, con tres métodos de infiltración comúnmente utilizados in situ: doble anillo, Porchet y permeámetro de Guelph. Observamos una correlación buena (r2=0,74) entre los valores obtenidos por medio del método del doble anillo y el permeámetro de Guelph; la correlación entre el método de Porchet y estos otros dos métodos es mala (r2 inferior a 0,02).Los valores de recarga obtenidos muestran que no hay una variación significativa entre estos métodos de infiltración, obteniendo resultados dentro del intervalo de confianza"
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".