Determination of log moisture content using ground penetrating radar (GPR). Part 1. Partial least squares (PLS) method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a handheld system showing good potential for the real-time and nondestructive characterization of wood moisture content (MC). However, measurements performed over logs can be challenging because of their curved surface that can affect the GPR signal. In this study, the MC of thawed and frozen logs was estimated for three species (quaking aspen, balsam poplar, and black spruce) using the full GPR signals and the partial least squares (PLS) regression method. The signal was acquired from the cross-section (CS) and through the bark (TB) of the logs with and without an aluminum plate placed under the log. The full GPR signal does not provide better log MC prediction accuracy for small logs compared with the early-time GPR signal. The information about the shape and diameter of the log is contained in the direct and reflected waves of the GPR signal. CS models provided more accurate log MC prediction (RMSEv=7–25%) than TB models (RMSEv=6–40%) for the hardwood species. Thawed and frozen log models showed similar performances. This study demonstrates that GPR in combination with PLS regression is suitable for predicting log MC in the field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".