Generation of soil drainage equations from an artificial neural network-analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zhao, Z., MacLean, D. A., Bourque, C. P.-A., Swift, D. E. and Meng, F.-R. 2013. Generation of soil drainage equations from an artificial neural network-analysis approach. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 329-342. Soil properties, especially soil drainage, are known to be related to topo-hydrologic variables derived from digital elevation models (DEM), such as vertical slope position, slope steepness, sediment delivery ratio, and topographic wetness index. Such relationships typically are strongly non-linear and thus difficult to define with conventional statistical methods. In this study, we used artificial neural network (ANN) models to establish relationships between soil drainage classes and DEM-generated topo-hydrologic variables and subsequently formulated the relationships to generate soil drainage equations for soil mapping. A high-resolution field soil map of the Black Brook Watershed in northwest New Brunswick, Canada, was used to calibrate/validate the ANN models, and the obtained equations. Independent data from an experimental farm, about 180 km away, were also used for validation. Results indicated that vertical slope position was the best predictor of soil drainage classes (r=0.55), followed by slope steepness (r=0.44), sediment delivery ratio (r=0.39), and topographic wetness index (r=0.38). The obtained soil drainage equations fitted well to the ANN model predictions (r 2=0.78-0.99; root mean squared error=0.39-4.55). Analyses indicated that soil drainage equations clearly reflected the actual relationships between soil drainage classes and DEM-generated topo-hydrologic variables, and have the potential to minimize bias originated from over-training the ANN models when applied outside the area of calibration, especially when the ranges of input variables were outside of the range of calibration data.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".