MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040346055 · doi:10.2113/jeeg10.1.1

Golf Course Applications of Near-Surface Geophysical Methods: A Case Study

2005· article· en· W2040346055 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsDuPont (Canada)Research Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarCourse (navigation)EMIGeologyRadarGeophysicsRemote sensingEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectromagnetic interference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As of the year 2000, there were over 15,000 golf course facilities in the U.S.A. alone. The upkeep of these facilities requires continual maintenance and occasional remodeling. The superintendents and architects responsible for the maintenance and remodeling efforts need non-destructive tools for obtaining information on shallow subsurface features within parts of the golf course, particularly tees and greens. The subsurface features of importance include, but are not limited to, constructed soil layer characteristics and drainage system infrastructure. Near-surface geophysical methods can potentially provide a non-destructive means for golf course superintendents and architects to obtain the shallow subsurface information required to address their maintenance and remodeling concerns. This case study assessment of near-surface geophysical methods in regard to golf course applications focused on electromagnetic induction (EMI) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) techniques. The investigation employed two different EMI ground conductivity meters. Two GPR systems were also tested including the evaluation of antenna center frequencies ranging from 250 to 1,000 MHz. The study incorporated three separate sites. Measurements with both EMI and GPR were collected on a tee and a green at the Muirfield Village Golf Club in Dublin, Ohio, U.S.A. and on a practice green at the Golf Club of Dublin in Dublin, Ohio, U.S.A. GPR was also tested on a golf course green at the Guelph Turfgrass Institute & Environmental Research Centre in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Results indicate that use of the appropriate EMI equipment can provide information on spatial changes of shallow apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) within golf course green constructed soil layers. This ECa data could potentially be employed to gauge constructed soil layer conditions, including wetness, salinity, etc., within different areas of a green. GPR proved quite capable of obtaining useful information on the golf course tee and greens that were studied, at least in regard to constructed soil layer thicknesses/depths or their areal extent and in locating the subsurface drainage pipe systems present. For the GPR center antenna frequencies evaluated, ranging from 250 to 1,000 MHz, all seemed to work relatively well for mapping tee and green constructed soil layer areal extent and drainage pipe locations. The higher frequency 900 and 1,000 MHz antennas appeared to work best for resolving thicknesses/depths of constructed soil layers within the tee and greens investigated. In addition, computer modeling of synthetic GPR profiles provide valuable insight and help considerably with data interpretation. While more research is certainly warranted, near-surface geophysical methods, especially EMI and GPR, appear to show promise with respect to acquiring the data needed in golf course maintenance and remodeling applications.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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