MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130584008 · doi:10.1109/crv.2015.15

Deep Learning Architectures for Soil Property Prediction

2015· article· en· W2130584008 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Veres, Griffin Lacey, Graham W. Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkProperty (philosophy)Deep learningMachine learningConvolution (computer science)Kernel (algebra)RegressionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in diffuse reflectance infra-red spec-cryoscopy measurements have made it possible to estimate number of functional properties of soil inexpensively and accurately. Core to such techniques are machine learning methods that can map high-dimensional spectra to real-valued outputs. While previous works have considered predicting each property individually using simple regression methods, the correlation structure present in the output variables prompts us to consider methods that can leverage this structure to make more accurate predictions. In this paper, we leverage advances in deep learning architectures, specifically convolution neural networks and conditional restricted Boltzmann machines for structured output prediction for soil property prediction. We evaluate our methods on two recent spectral datasets, where output soil properties are shown to have a measurable degree of correlation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207