A High‐Resolution Surface Mapping Procedure for Soil Cores Using Computed Tomography Scanning Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Core Ideas Reliable surface representation is important for porosity analysis inside soil cores. High‐resolution soil surface maps are drawn from computed tomography scanning data. The moving‐window procedure presented here deals with artifacts and soil cavities. High‐resolution mapping of the soil surface provides insight regarding gas and water transport at the soil–atmosphere interface and biogeochemical reactions occurring in soil pores connected to the atmosphere. A new procedure for high‐resolution soil mapping was tested in undisturbed cores (15‐cm diameter) with images constructed from X‐ray computed tomography (CT) scanning. Our procedure includes detecting boundaries at the soil–air interface, edge cleaning, and removal of artifacts by use of a moving window with optimized size. We tested the procedure on three undisturbed soil cores from an agricultural field: (i) without introduced earthworms vs. in which earthworms of (ii) smaller ( Aporrectodea turgida Eisen) or (iii) larger ( Lumbricus terrestris L.) size were introduced and resided for 28 d. Soil surface maps were produced at a scale of 0.35‐ by 0.35‐mm pixels, with gray tones reflecting lower to higher elevation. This work has implications for describing pore connectivity and interpreting greenhouse gas fluxes from the soil.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".