MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099025045

Goa, India Effect of Erosion on the Hydrogeological Behaviour of Badland Surfaces in Western

2013· article· en· W7099025045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErosionHydrogeologyWater erosionLithologyGrain sizeParticle-size distribution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Climatic conditions and in situ lithology govern the hydrogeological behaviour of badland surfaces in western Canada. Based on field observations, samples representing three distinct surfaces in the Avonlea badlands (60 km SSW of Regina) of Saskatchewan were collected. The influence of erosion on the engineering properties of this typical indigenous badland profile was investigated by measuring the grain size distribution (GSD) using dry sieving and wet sieving along with hydrometer analysis and estimating the soil water characteristic curves (SWCC) from the two sets of laboratory data. Results indicated that the various selected sediments respond differently to the same weather changes and that the angle of repose slopes at the site closely correspond to possible erosion patterns. Based on an increase in fines (material finer than 0.075 mm), grain size thinning was found to be highest in weathered mudrock (75%) followed by basal pediment (32%) and then by cemented sandstone (16%). The estimated air entry values (AEV) corresponding to dry sieving and wet sieving plus hydrometer analysis followed the same trend: 0.6 kPa and 2340 kPa; 1.6 kPa and 7 kPa; and 1.6 kPa and 1.6 kPa for the three materials, respectively. 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control→French-language works237,207→