Estimating Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity In Spatially Variable Fields Using Neural Network Ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling contaminant and water flow through soil requires accurate estimates of soil hydraulic properties in field scale. Although artificial neural networks (ANNs) based pedotransfer functions (PTFs) have been successfully adopted in modeling soil hydraulic properties at larger scales (national, continental, and intercontinental), the utility of ANNs in modeling saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K s ) at a smaller (field) scale has rarely been reported. Hence, the objectives of this study are (i) to investigate the applicability of neural networks in estimating K s at field scales, (ii) to compare the performance of the field‐scale PTFs with the published neural networks program Rosetta, and (iii) to compare the performance of two different ensemble methods, namely Bagging and Boosting in estimating K s Datasets from two distinct sites are considered in the study. The performances of the models were evaluated when only sand, silt, and clay content (SSC) were used as inputs, and when SSC and bulk density ρ b (SSC+ ρ b ) were used as inputs. For both datasets, the field scale models performed better than Rosetta The comparison of field‐scale ANN models employing bagging and boosting algorithms indicates that the neural network model employing the boosting algorithm results in better generalization by reducing both the bias and variance of the neural network models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".