MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595428387 · doi:10.1071/wf03072

Measuring duff moisture content in the field using a portable meter sensitive to dielectric permittivity*

2004· article· en· W1595428387 on OpenAlexaff
Peter R. Robichaud, David S. Gasvoda, Roger D. Hungerford, Jim Bilskie, Louise E. Ashmun, J. Reardon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsCampbell Scientific (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater contentEnvironmental scienceGreen woodMetreGravimetric analysisRadiometerHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceRemote sensingWood dryingGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duff water content is an important consideration for fire managers when determining favourable timing for prescribed fire ignition. The duff consumption during burning depends largely on the duff water content at the time of ignition. A portable duff moisture meter was developed for real-time water content measurements of non-homogenous material such as forest duff. Using circuitry developed from time and frequency domain reflectometry (TDR and FDR) technologies, this sensor measures a change in frequency that is responsive to the dielectric permittivity of the duff material placed in a sample chamber and compressed. Duff samples from four forest cover types—Douglas fir, larch, lodgepole pine and spruce/alpine fir—were used to calibrate the frequency output to volumetric water content. A second-order polynomial (R2 = 0.97) provides the best fit of the data to volumetric water content. The accuracy of the duff moisture meter is ±1.5% at 30% volumetric water content and ±4% at 60% volumetric water content. The volumetric water content can readily be converted to gravimetric water content, which is used more frequently by fire managers and as an input to predictive models of duff consumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207