Investigating the capabilities of evolutionary data-driven techniques using the challenging estimation of soil moisture content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil moisture has a crucial role in both the global energy and hydrological cycles; it affects different ecosystem processes. Spatial and temporal variability of soil moisture add to its complex behaviour, which undermines the reliability of most current measurement methods. In this paper, two promising evolutionary data-driven techniques, namely (i) Evolutionary Polynomial Regression and (ii) Genetic Programming, are challenged with modelling the soil moisture response to the near surface atmospheric conditions. The utility of the proposed models is demonstrated through the prediction of the soil moisture response of three experimental soil covers, used for the restoration of watersheds that were disturbed by the mining industry. The results showed that the storage effect of the soil moisture response is the major challenging factor; it can be quantified using cumulative inputs better than time-lag inputs, which can be attributed to the effect of the soil layer moisture-holding capacity. This effect increases with the increase in the soil layer thickness. Three different modelling tools are tested to investigate the tool effect in data-driven modelling. Despite the promising results with regard to the prediction accuracy, the study demonstrates the need for adopting multiple data-driven modelling techniques and tools (modelling environments) to obtain reliable predictions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".