MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2815885864 · doi:10.1111/ejss.12687

Spatial modelling with Euclidean distance fields and machine learning

2018· article· en· W2815885864 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Soil Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsKrigingRandom forestArtificial intelligenceMultivariate adaptive regression splinesSupport vector machineSpatial analysisComputer scienceMars Exploration ProgramMachine learningRegression analysisData miningMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsBayesian multivariate linear regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This study introduces a hybrid spatial modelling framework, which accounts for spatial non‐stationarity, spatial autocorrelation and environmental correlation. A set of geographic spatially autocorrelated Euclidean distance fields (EDF) was used to provide additional spatially relevant predictors to the environmental covariates commonly used for mapping. The approach was used in combination with machine‐learning methods, so we called the method Euclidean distance fields in machine‐learning (EDM). This method provides advantages over other prediction methods that integrate spatial dependence and state factor models, for example, regression kriging (RK) and geographically weighted regression (GWR). We used seven generic (EDFs) and several commonly used predictors with different regression algorithms in two digital soil mapping (DSM) case studies and compared the results to those achieved with ordinary kriging (OK), RK and GWR as well as the multiscale methods ConMap, ConStat and contextual spatial modelling (CSM). The algorithms tested in EDM were a linear model, bagged multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), radial basis function support vector machines (SVM), Cubist, random forest (RF) and a neural network (NN) ensemble. The study demonstrated that DSM with EDM provided results comparable to RK and to the contextual multiscale methods. Best results were obtained with Cubist, RF and bagged MARS. Because the tree‐based approaches produce discontinuous response surfaces, the resulting maps can show visible artefacts when only the EDFs are used as predictors (i.e. no additional environmental covariates). Artefacts were not obvious for SVM and NN and to a lesser extent bagged MARS. An advantage of EDM is that it accounts for spatial non‐stationarity and spatial autocorrelation when using a small set of additional predictors. The EDM is a new method that provides a practical alternative to more conventional spatial modelling and thus it enhances the DSM toolbox. Highlights We present a hybrid mapping approach that accounts for spatial dependence and environmental correlation. The approach is based on a set of generic Euclidean distance fields (EDF). Our Euclidean distance fields in machine learning (EDM) can model non‐stationarity and spatial autocorrelation. The EDM approach eliminates the need for kriging of residuals and produces accurate digital soil maps.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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