MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161754084 · doi:10.1177/0309133313501106

A review of ground-penetrating radar studies related to peatland stratigraphy with a case study on the determination of peat thickness in a northern boreal fen in Quebec, Canada

2013· review· en· W2161754084 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

VenueProgress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarPeatGeologyContext (archaeology)AttenuationStratigraphyRadarLithologyGeomorphologyHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceRemote sensingGeotechnical engineeringSeismologyGeochemistryPaleontologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-intrusive geophysical observation method based on propagation and reflection of high-frequency electromagnetic waves in the shallow subsurface. The vertical cross-sectional images obtained allow the identification of thickness and lithologic horizons of different media, without destruction. Over the last decade, several studies have demonstrated the potential of GPR. This paper presents a review of recent GPR applications to peatlands, particularly to determine peat stratigraphy. An example study of acquisition and comparison of peatland soil thickness of a fen-dominated watershed located in the James Bay region of Quebec, using (1) a meter stick linked to a GPS RTK and (2) a GSSI GPR, is given. A coefficient of determination ( r 2 ) of 56% was obtained between the ordinary krigings performed on data gathered using both techniques. Disparities occurred mainly in the vicinity of ponds which can be explained by the attenuation of GPR signal in open water. Despite these difficulties – the higher time required for analysis and the error margin – it seems more appropriate to use a GPR, instead of a graduated rod linked to a GPS, to measure the peat depths on a site like the one presented in this study. Manual measurements, which are user-dependent in the context of variable mineral substrate densities and with the presence of obstacles in the substrate, may be more subjective.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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