MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1742308188 · doi:10.1029/2011wr011414

High‐resolution ground‐penetrating radar monitoring of soil moisture dynamics: Field results, interpretation, and comparison with unsaturated flow model

2012· article· en· W1742308188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarVadose zoneInfiltration (HVAC)Water contentGeologySoil scienceDepth soundingMoistureEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingRadarHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterMeteorologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) techniques have been used by a number of previous researchers to characterize soil moisture content in the vadose zone. However, limited temporal sampling and low resolution near the surface in these studies greatly impedes the quantitative analysis of vertical soil moisture distribution and its associated dynamics within the shallow subsurface. To further examine the capacity of surface GPR, we have undertaken an extensive 26 month field study using concurrent high‐frequency (i.e., 900 MHz) reflection profiling and common‐midpoint (CMP) soundings to quantitatively monitor soil moisture distribution and dynamics within the shallow vadose zone. This unprecedented data set allowed us to assess the concurrent use of these techniques over two contrasting annual cycles of soil conditions. Reflection profiles provided high‐resolution traveltime data between four stratigraphic reflection events while cumulative results of the CMP sounding data set produced precise depth estimates for those reflecting interfaces, which were used to convert interval‐traveltime data into soil moisture. The downward propagation of major infiltration episodes associated with seasonal and transient events are well resolved by the GPR data. The use of CMP soundings permitted the determination of direct ground wave velocities, which provided high‐resolution information along the air‐soil interface. This improved resolution enabled better characterization of short‐duration wetting/drying and freezing/thawing processes, and permitted better evaluation of the nature of the coupling between shallow and deep moisture conditions. The nature of transient infiltration pulses, evapotranspiration episodes, and deep drainage patterns observed in the GPR data series were further examined by comparing them with a vertical soil moisture flow simulation based on the variably saturated model, HYDRUS‐1D. Using laboratory‐derived soil hydraulic property information from soil samples and a number of simplifying assumptions about the upper and lower‐boundary condition, we were able to achieve very good agreement between measured and simulated soil moisture profiles without model calibration; this is a strong indication of the overall quality of the GPR‐derived soil moisture estimates. The only notable difference between simulated values and GPR water content estimates occurred during extended dry soil conditions near the surface.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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