MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990611769 · doi:10.4141/cjss08012

Model prediction of soil drainage classes based on digital elevation model parameters and soil attributes from coarse resolution soil maps

2008· article· en· W1990611769 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Zilong Zhao, T. L. Chow, Qi Yang, H. W. Rees, Glenn Benoy, Zisheng Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsDrainageDigital elevation modelHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceSoil waterSoil scienceSoil mapElevation (ballistics)WatershedSoil surveyDigital soil mappingGeologyRemote sensingMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207