Artificial neural network model for estimating the soil temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ozturk, M., Salman, O. and Koc, M. 2011. Artificial neural network model for estimating the soil temperature. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 551–562. Although soil temperature is a critically important agricultural and environmental factor, it is typically monitored with low spatial resolution and, as a result, methods are required to estimate soil temperature at locations remote from monitoring stations. In this study, cost-effective, feed-forward artificial neural network (ANN) models are developed and tested for estimating soil temperature at 5-, 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-cm depths using standard geographical and meteorological data (i.e., altitude, latitude, longitude, month, year, monthly solar radiation, monthly sunshine duration and monthly mean air temperature). These data plus measured monthly mean soil temperature were collected for 2006–2008 from 66 monitoring stations distributed throughout Turkey to obtain a total of 2376 data records (36 months×66 monitoring stations) for each of the five soil depths. At each soil depth, 1800 randomly selected data records were used to develop and train a separate ANN model, and the remaining 576 records at each depth were used to test and validate the resulting models. Good agreement was obtained between ANN-estimated soil temperature and measured soil temperature, as evidenced by correlation coefficients of 98.91, 97.99, 99.03, 98.26 and 95.37% for the 5-, 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-cm soil depths, respectively. It was concluded that ANN modeling is a reliable method for predicting monthly mean soil temperature in regions of Turkey where soil temperature monitoring stations are not present.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".