Comparisons of the prediction results of soil properties based on fuzzy <i>c</i>-means clustering and expert knowledge from laboratory Visible – Near-Infrared reflectance spectroscopy data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil organic matter and soil particle composition play extremely important roles in soil fertility, environmental protection, and sustainable agricultural development. Visible – near-infrared reflectance (Vis–NIR) spectroscopy is a rapid, effective, and low-cost analytical method to predict soil properties. In this study, laboratory Vis–NIR spectroscopy data were used to compare the differences among partial least squares regression (PLSR), artificial neural network (ANN) and multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARSplines) based on fuzzy c-means spectral clustering and expert knowledge classification methods for soil prediction. The results showed that (1) the sand content (R2 = 0.69–0.77) had the best prediction, followed by the silt (R2 = 0.56–0.71) and organic matter (R2 = 0.54–0.69) contents, whereas the clay content (R2 = 0.29–0.65) had the poorest prediction, (2) the performance of the models followed the order of PLSR > ANN > MARSplines, and (3) the accuracies of the organic matter and sand contents were higher when applying expert knowledge classification, whereas the prediction of the clay and silt contents was better when applying spectral clustering. However, the overall accuracy of the spectral clustering method was slightly better than that of expert classification. Our findings showed that the spectral cluster-based models produced effective and interpretable prediction results for estimating soil properties. Therefore, this approach should be considered when dealing with large and heterogeneous soil samples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".