Model prediction of soil drainage classes based on digital elevation model parameters and soil attributes from coarse resolution soil maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-resolution soil drainage maps are important for crop production planning, forest management, and environmental assessment. Existing soil classification maps tend to only have information about the dominant soil drainage conditions and they are inadequate for precision forestry and agriculture planning purposes. The objective of this research was to develop an artificial neural network (ANN) model for producing soil drainage classification maps at high resolution. Soil profile data extracted from coarse resolution soil maps (1:1 000 000 scale) and topographic and hydrological variables derived from digital elevation model (DEM) data (1:35 000 scale) were considered as candidates for inputs. A high-resolution soil drainage map (1:10 000) of the Black Brook Watershed (BBW) in northwestern New Brunswick (NB), Canada, was used to train and validate the ANN model. Results indicated that the best ANN model included average soil drainage classes, average soil sand content, vertical slope position (VSP), sediment delivery ratio (SDR) and slope steepness as inputs. It was found that 52% of model-predicted drainage classes were exactly the same as field assessment observations and 94% of model-predicted drainage classes were within ±1 class. In comparison, only 12% of maps indicated drainage classes were the same as field assessment observations based on coarse resolution soil maps and only 55% of points were within ±1 class of field assessed drainage classes. Results indicated that the model could be used to produce high-resolution soil drainage maps at relatively low cost. Key words: Soil drainage, artificial neural network model, ANN model, high-resolution soil maps, DEM, hydrology model
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".