MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392195584 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.130957

Potential of ground-penetrating radar to calibrate electromagnetic induction for shallow soil water content estimation

2024· article· en· W4392195584 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNewfoundland and LabradorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarEMICalibrationReflectometryWater contentElectromagnetic inductionRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceRadarSoil scienceSoil waterGeologyElectromagnetic coilElectromagnetic interferenceTime domainGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsElectronic engineeringStatisticsComputer scienceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI) are used to determine and map soil water content (SWC) in the agricultural landscape. While GPR provides a straightforward estimation of SWC, EMI requires site-specific calibrations mainly based on point-scale measurements such as time domain reflectometry (TDR). However, there is a significant difference in the measurement volumes between EMI and point-scale TDR measurements. This study aimed to enhance the calibration of EMI for estimating SWC in the agricultural landscape by leveraging the larger sampling volumes provided by GPR. Apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) from a multi-coil EMI sensor and dielectric constant from GPR with two center frequencies (500 MHz and 250 MHz) were collected as soil proxies along with TDR measurements. Calibration models were developed under irrigated conditions and the model evaluation was conducted under natural moisture conditions. Correlations were assessed between the proxies from GPR and EMI with TDR-derived SWCs. Simple linear regression (SLR) models were developed between EMI and GPR data to predict SWC. Strong positive correlations (r≥ 0.80) were observed between the proxies (GPR and the shorter inter-coil spacing (0.32 m) of EMI) and TDR-measured SWC. ECa data from vertical and horizontal coil orientations of the shorter inter-coil spacings were selected to develop SLR models with GPR. The SLR models with the GPR 500 MHz frequency showed a higher coefficient of determination (R2 > 0.70) for both coil orientations of EMI. Results showed the potential of using GPR to calibrate EMI for shallow SWC estimation (below 0.5 m). Nevertheless, the EMI estimated SWCs were not effectively verified with GPR-estimated SWCs, which could be attributed to specific site conditions in the study area. Further research must focus on improving the calibration and model evaluation by incorporating the variability of other soil parameters (soil porosity, pore-water conductivity, and soil salinity) that may affect the SWC−ECa relationship.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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