Assessment of reclaimed soils by unsupervised clustering of proximal sensor data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of soil proximal sensors on reclaimed sites presents a novel method for assessing the quality of reclaimed landscapes. This method improves assessment reliability, information management, and environmental assurance. One proximal sensing system that could be used to provide high spatial resolution measurements of soil parameters is an on-the-go optical sensor that collects data at two wavelengths: 660 and 940 nm. Proximal soil sensing data were collected at 27 sites, where organic matter, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and soil water content were collected from 221 soil samples from 0 to 15 cm. The proximal soil sensor data were then automatically clustered using a combination of self-organizing maps and random uniform forests. Overall, the proximal sensor data combined with this data analysis approach created maps with either three or four soil zones. On average, soil zones had statistically significant differences in organic matter, CEC, and water content. This system could be used to map out zones with significant soil variation as part of reclamation monitoring and then used to guide laboratory analytical sampling. Future work should focus on development of on-the-go reflectance spectroscopy systems to provide quantitative soil data with high spatial resolution.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".