Assessment of Multi-frequency Electromagnetic Induction for Determining Soil Moisture Patterns at the Hillslope Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
summary Hillslopes are fundamental landscape units, yet represent a difficult scale for measurements as they are well-beyond our traditional point-scale techniques. Here we present an assessment of electromagnetic induction (EM) as a potential rapid and non-invasive method to map soil moisture patterns at the hillslope scale. We test the new multi-frequency GEM-300 for spatially distributed soil moisture measurements at the well-instrumented Panola hillslope. EM-based apparent conductivity measurements were linearly related to soil moisture measured with the Aqua-pro capacitance sensor below a threshold conductivity and represented the temporal patterns in soil moisture well. During spring rainfall events that wetted only the surface soil layers the apparent conductivity measurements explained the soil moisture dynamics at depth better than the surface soil moisture dynamics. All four EM frequencies (7.290, 9.090, 11.250, and 14.010 kHz) were highly correlated and linearly related to each other and could be used to predict soil moisture. This limited our ability to use the four different EM frequencies to obtain a soil moisture profile with depth. The apparent conductivity patterns represented the observed spatial soil moisture patterns well when the individually fitted relationships between measured soil moisture and apparent conductivity were used for each measurement point. However, when the same (master) relationship was used for all measurement locations, the soil moisture patterns were smoothed and did not resemble the observed soil moisture patterns very well. In addition the range in calculated soil moisture values was reduced compared to observed soil moisture. Part of the smoothing was likely due to the much larger measurement area of the GEM-300 compared to the soil moisture measurements.
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) | 0.000 | 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".