Distinguishing Capillary Fringe Reflection in a GPR Profile for Precise Water Table Depth Estimation in a Boreal Podzolic Soil Field
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
Relative permittivity and soil moisture are highly correlated; therefore, the top boundary of saturated soil gives strong reflections in ground-penetrating radar (GPR) profiles. Conventionally in shallow groundwater systems, the first dominant reflection comes from the capillary fringe, followed by the actual water table. The objective of this study was to calibrate and validate a site-specific relationship between GPR-estimated depth to the capillary fringe (DCF) and measured water table depth (WTDm). Common midpoint (CMP) GPR surveys were carried out in order to estimate the average radar velocity, and common offset (CO) surveys were carried out to map the water table variability in the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons. Also, GPR sampling volume geometry with radar velocities in different soil layers was considered to support the CMP estimations. The regression model (R2 = 0.9778) between DCF and WTDm, developed for the site in 2017, was validated using data from 2018. A regression analysis between DCF and WTDm for the two growing seasons suggested an average capillary height of 0.741 m (R2 = 0.911, n = 16), which is compatible with the existing literature under similar soil conditions. The described method should be further developed over several growing seasons to encompass wider water table variability.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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