MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrated ground-penetrating radar and electromagnetic induction offer a non-destructive approach to predict soil bulk density in boreal podzolic soil

2024· article· en· W4402573741 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

VenueGeoderma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersDepartment of Industry, Energy and TechnologyNewfoundland and LabradorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarRadarBorealTaigaGeologySoil scienceElectromagnetic inductionBulk densityEnvironmental scienceSoil waterEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Non-destructive approach to predict soil bulk density over larger areas. • Soil compaction influences geophysical responses. • Random forest approach identified important variables to predict bulk density. • Developed models show high accuracy in predicting bulk density. • These data Electromagnetic Induction and Ground-penetrating radar data can predict bulk density. Tillage and soil compaction affect soil properties, processes, and state variables influencing soil health, hydrodynamics, and crop growth. Assessing soil compaction levels using traditional methods, such as soil sampling and penetration resistance, is inefficient for scaling up from plot to field scales. Geophysical methods like Ground-penetrating Radar (GPR) and Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) are becoming prominent for assessing soil properties and state variables in agriculture due to their ability to overcome the limitations of traditional methods. However, a research gap exists in non-destructively estimating bulk density changes related to tillage and soil compaction. This study aimed to (1) assess the influence of soil compaction on GPR and EMI responses in boreal podzolic soil and (2) develop and evaluate prediction models to determine soil bulk density using GPR and EMI. The experiment was conducted by compacting loamy sand-textured soil using a lawn roller. GPR data were collected to determine the soil dielectric constant (K r ) and the direct ground wave amplitude (A DGW ), along with EMI-measured apparent electrical conductivity (EC a ) under three compaction levels (no, four and ten roller passes). Relationships between K r , A DGW and EC a and the average bulk density of 0–0.30 m depth at three compaction levels were tested. A Random Forest (RF) regression approach was employed to identify the most significant variables for predicting bulk density. Simple and multiple linear regression (SLR and MLR, respectively) models were developed using EC a and K r and were subsequently evaluated. Results revealed significant differences between the measured bulk density and geophysical data across the tested compaction levels. During the model development, SLR and MLR showed R 2 > 0.65, and the model evaluation showed a root mean square error of < 0.14 g/cm 3 . This study highlights the potential of using GPR and EMI for the non-destructive prediction of bulk density in the agricultural landscape. However, further research is needed to explore the applicability and limitations of this approach across varying water contents, electrical conductivities, and soil types.

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 score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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