Potential of ground-penetrating radar to calibrate electromagnetic induction for shallow soil water content estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".