Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Stochastic models of soil variation are used in geostatistical analysis, but in general they bear no relation to our mechanistic understanding of the processes in soil that cause its properties to vary spatially. It is proposed that we require a suitable stochastic model in which space is partitioned into discrete domains as a first step towards random spatial models that incorporate our understanding of processes in soil. Even though the soil is essentially continuous in its spatial variation, there are components of soil variation (e.g. differences between parent materials) which are discontinuous. This paper shows how variogram models can be derived directly from the Poisson Voronoi Tessellation (PVT), a stochastic‐geometric partition of d ‐dimensional space. The PVT variogram models, for d = 2 and 3, were fitted to variograms estimated from data over disparate scales, including computerized tomographic images of soil aggregates (pixels of a few tens of micrometres long) and the land systems of Swaziland. In all cases, PVT variogram models fitted better than the conventional geostatistical ones. The good performance of PVT variogram models at these disparate scales encourages further work on tessellation models for soil variation. In principle such models could incorporate information on underlying factors of soil formation such as the spatial distribution of individual plants, the origin and growth of microbial colonies, spatial processes in soil chemistry (such as reaction–diffusion processes) and geometrical information on boundaries between geological strata or contrasting plant communities. PVT models may therefore be one component of a random model of soil variation which reflects our understanding of soil‐forming processes, and so have a stronger scientific basis than the models that are now in standard use.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".