Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Major advances in the measurement of soil water content have arisen from electromagnetic (EM) methods that have developed rapidly in the last 20 years. Estimates of water content from EM measurements make use of the large relative permittivity of water compared to other soil components. Time domain reflectometry (TDR) and capacitance approaches use “probes” that convey signal into the soil and thus can measure principally the upper one‐meter depth. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) using noninvasive, transmitting, and receiving antennae possesses the capability to measure to even greater depths without causing soil disturbance. Remote radar and passive microwave methods, operating generally above 1 GHz, derive their information from within a few centimeters of the ground surface. Thermogravimetric and neutron moderation continue as viable long‐standing methods but are being used less as these methods are not amenable to data‐logging. The variety of instruments has increased the surface and near‐surface soil water measurement capabilities. Now it is possible for hydrologists to make informed choices among methods, and it is important to do so to optimize their study results.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".