MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385834334 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3299430

Fabrication and Characterization of Soil Moisture Sensors on a Biodegradable, Cellulose-Based Substrate

2023· article· en· W4385834334 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne-Marie Zaccarin, Gokulanand M. Iyer, Roy H. Olsson, Kevin T. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCapacitive sensingMoistureSubstrate (aquarium)Materials scienceComposite numberFabricationCelluloseLoamWater contentHumidityComposite materialOptoelectronicsSoil waterEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringChemical engineeringSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of things (IoT) systems for precision agriculture offer the opportunity for more efficient use of water and fertilizers. Here, capacitive moisture sensors are screen-printed on a fully biodegradable paper substrate infiltrated with cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs). Screen-printed trace quality on the CNF-composite substrate is comparable to traces printed on polyimide and superior to traces printed on conventional cardstock. CNF-composite sensors absorb moisture and are shown to respond to changes in relative humidity (RH) in air. Sensors measured in loamy sand, similar to soil found in midwestern agricultural fields, are shown to respond to changes in soil moisture. The sensors demonstrate fast response times in both air and soil, making them ideal for use in agricultural applications. Small feature sizes achievable through screen-printing on the CNF-composite enable their direct use in 902–928 MHz chipless passive wireless sensing systems, as the fabricated sensors are shown to have a self-resonance well above the operating frequency band.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207