Remote detection of soil shear strength in Arctic and subarctic environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil shear strength affects many military activities and is affected significantly by plant roots. Unfortunately, root contribution to soil shear strength is difficult to measure and predict. In the boreal forest ecosystem, soil and hydrologic dynamics make soil shear strength less predictable, while the need for prediction grows due to the rapid changes occurring in this environment. Our current study objectives are to (1) observe possible aboveground vegetation indicators of soil shear strength variation across soils and other environmental heterogeneity, (2) observe possible image-based indicators of soil shear strength variation, and (3) identify the best remote-sensing data source for predicting soil shear strength variation. A total of 65 sites were sampled from a diversity of soil and vegetation types across interior Alaska and Ontario, Canada. Ground-collected data were analyzed to develop a predictive model, while a similar approach was undertaken with Sentinel-2 imagery. Results indicate that both ground-collected data and satellite imagery can reasonably predict boreal forest soil shear strength, with satellite imagery providing the higher predictive ability. A comparison of 10 m Sentinel-2 and submeter Maxar imagery indicated that Sentinel-2 provides a better prediction of soil shear strength.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".