MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389943069 · doi:10.1139/cjss-2023-0101

Gamma radiation for the estimation of mineral soil water content in a boreal forest

2023· article· en· W4389943069 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mathieu Gélinas, Sylvain Jutras

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHumusSoil scienceSoil waterWater contentEnvironmental scienceSoil horizonBorealGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous monitoring of water quantities in different soil horizons is necessary to understand the behavior of infiltrated water in the soil. Under certain conditions, using measurements of natural ground gamma radiation can help us estimate soil water content measurements over a 100 m2 surface within a 15 cm depth. A CS725 sensor can provide up to four daily estimates of soil water content by detecting the natural emission of gamma radiation. However, in boreal forest environments, gamma radiation mitigated by the water in the thick humus layers (litter, fermented, and humic horizon) can bias the underlying mineral soil water content measurements. The objective of this research was to evaluate the accuracy of methods that incorporate variables describing the surface humus layer into calculations of the underlying mineral soil water content, by measuring the soil’s natural gamma emission with the CS725. Using raw gamma radiation values obtained by CS725 sensors deployed over various boreal soils, we tested two functions. The first one included variables describing the humus layer and the other excluded these variables (manufacturer’s method). The function that included the descriptive humus layer variables showed superior results compared to the function without. The results of this study suggest that the CS725 sensor can adequately estimate mineral soil water content within ±10% absolute of the reference water content when examined with the following humus variables: humus layer thickness, fractioned composition, bulk density, and linear gamma radiation attenuation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207