Soil Water Retention Measurements Using a Combined Tensiometer‐Coiled Time Domain Reflectometry Probe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the presented study was to develop a single probe that can be used to determine soil water retention curves in both laboratory and field conditions, by including a coiled time domain reflectometry (TDR) probe around the porous cup of a standard tensiometer. The combined tensiometer‐coiled TDR probe was constructed by wrapping two copper wires (0.8 mm diam. and 35.5 cm long) along a 5‐cm long porous cup of a standard tensiometer. The dielectric constant of five different soils (Oso Flaco [coarse‐loamy, mixed Typic Cryorthod‐fine‐loamy, mixed, mesic Ustollic Haplargid], Ottawa sand [F‐50‐silica sand], Columbia [Coarse‐loamy, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Oxyaquic Xerofluvents], Lincoln sandy loam (sandy, mixed, thermic Typic Ustifluvents), and a washed sand ‐ SRI30) was measured with the combined tensiometer‐coiled TDR probe (coil) as a function of the soil water content (θ) and soil water matric potential ( h ). The measured dielectric constant (ε coil ) as a function of water content was empirically fitted with a third‐order polynomial equation, allowing estimation of θ( h )‐curves from the combined tensiometer‐coiled TDR probe measurements, with R 2 values larger than 0.98. In addition, the mixing model approach, adapted for the tensiometer‐coiled TDR probe, was successful in explaining the functional form of the coiled TDR data with about 30% of the coiled‐TDR probe measurement explained by the bulk soil dielectric constant. This new TDR development provides in situ soil water retention data from simultaneous soil water matric potential and water content measurements within approximately the same small soil volume around the combined probe, but requires soil specific calibration because of slight desaturation of the porous cup of the tensiometer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".