MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134822732 · doi:10.1002/hyp.7688

Field observations of shallow freeze and thaw processes using high‐frequency ground‐penetrating radar

2010· article· en· W2134822732 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colby M. Steelman, Anthony L. Endres, Jan van der Kruk

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarGeologyFrost (temperature)Soil waterDielectric permittivitySpatial variabilitySoil scienceRadarPermittivityHydrology (agriculture)MineralogyGeomorphologyDielectricGeotechnical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have used reflection profiles and common‐midpoint (CMP) soundings with 900 MHz ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) to monitor freezing and thawing processes during winter seasonal periods at two separate sites located in Ontario, Canada. GPR responds to the large contrast in dielectric permittivity between liquid water and ice. The profiles reveal the long‐term development of a very shallow (<0·5 m) soil frost zone overlying unfrozen wet substratum. During the course of the winter season, long‐term travel time analysis yielded physical properties of the frozen and unfrozen layers as well as the spatial distribution of the base of the soil frost zone. Short‐term shallow thawing events overlying frozen substratum formed a dispersive waveguide for both the CMP and reflection profile surveys. Inversion of the dispersive wavefields for the CMP data yielded physical property estimates for the thawed and frozen soils and thawed layer thickness. We have shown that GPR can be used to monitor very shallow freezing and thawing events by responding to changes in the relative dielectric permittivity of the soil water phase (e.g. liquid water vs ice). The non‐invasive collection of such data permits interpretation of dynamic temporal and spatial freeze–thaw events, which are important for characterizing a range of hydrological processes. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207