SOIL SALINITY PREDICTION USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This study explores the applicability of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) for predicting salt build‐up in the crop root zone. ANN models were developed with salinity data from field lysimeters subirrigated with brackish water. Different ANN architectures were explored by varying the number of processing elements (PEs) (from 1 to 30) for replicate data from a 0.4 m water table, 0.8 m water table, and both 0.4 and 0.8 m water table lysimeters. Different ANN models were developed by using individual replicate treatment values as well as the mean value for each treatment. For replicate data, the models with twenty, seven, and six PEs were found to be the best for the water tables at 0.4 m, 0.8 m and both water tables combined, respectively. The correlation coefficients between observed salinity and ANN predicted salinity of the test data with these models were 0.89, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively. The performance of the ANNs developed using mean salinity values of the replicates was found to be similar to those with replicate data. Not only was there agreement between observed and ANN predicted salinity values, the results clearly indicated the potential use of ANN models for predicting salt build‐up in soil profile at a specific site.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".