Precision and accuracy of three alternative instruments for measuring soil water content in two forest soils of the Pacific Northwest
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the accuracy and precision of three devices for measuring soil water content in both natural and repacked soils and evaluated their temperature sensitivity. Calibrations were developed for a capacitance instrument (ECH2O), a time domain reflectometry cable tester (CT), and a water content reflectometer (WCR) in soils collected from the Wind River and H.J. Andrews Experimental Forests. We compared these calibrations with equations suggested by manufacturers or commonly used in the literature and found the standard equations predicted soil moisture content 0%11.5% lower (p < 0.0001) than new calibrations. Each new calibration equation adequately predicted soil moisture from the output for each instrument regardless of location or soil type. Prediction intervals varied, with errors of 4.5%, 3.5%, and 7.1% for the ECH2O, CT, and WCR, respectively. Only the ECH2O system was significantly influenced by temperature for the range sampled: as temperature increased by 1 °C, the soil moisture estimate decreased by 0.1%. Overall, the ECH2O performed nearly as well as the CT, and thanks to its lower cost, small differences in performance might be offset by deployment of a greater number of probes in field sampling. Despite its higher cost, the WCR did not perform as well as the other two systems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it