Fine grinding is needed to maintain the high accuracy of mid‐infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for soil property estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In mid‐infrared diffuse reflectance (MIR) soil spectroscopy, grinding is one major step that can have pronounced effects on spectra and model calibrations. The reported literature on the effects of fine grinding on spectroscopic model performance have been inconsistent, likely in part because of limitations in sample set and model calibrations in previous studies. This study was focused on answering the question whether fine grinding is necessary for MIR spectroscopy in order to minimize model uncertainty. The main goal of this study was to compare model performance with and without fine grinding for eight soil properties using two different modeling techniques: partial least squares regression (PLS) and artificial neural networks (ANN). Approximately 500 soil samples were extracted from a large MIR spectral library in the United States to obtain spectra at non‐fine ground (NG, <2 mm,) and fine‐ground (FG, <0.18 mm,) states. Performance of calibration models built using subsets of the 500 FG and 500 NG spectra were compared with models built using the entire FG spectral library ( n > 40,000). All the model calibrations and validations were repeated 100 times to evaluate the uncertainty of the model performances. The results showed that PLS performed similar to ANN for the smaller dataset, but the best model performance was obtained with the FG full spectral library with ANN models. Predictions on the FG spectra always outperformed predictions on the NG spectra in terms of goodness‐of‐fit and variance of statistics. Overall, this study confirmed the importance of fine grinding to ensure the best MIR spectroscopic model performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".