Soil polygon disaggregation through similarity-based prediction with legacy pedons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional soil maps generally contain one or more soil types within a single soil polygon.But their geographic locations within the polygon are not specified.This restricts current applications of the maps in site-specific agricultural management and environmental modelling.We examined the utility of legacy pedon data for disaggregating soil polygons and the effectiveness of similarity-based prediction for making use of the under-or over-sampled legacy pedon data for the disaggregation.The method consisted of three steps.First,environmental similarities between the pedon sites and each location were computed based on soil formative environmental factors.Second,according to soil types of the pedon sites,the similarities were aggregated to derive similarity distribution for each soil type.Third,a hardening process was performed on the maps to allocate candidate soil types within the polygons.The study was conducted at the soil subgroup level in a semi-arid area situated in Manitoba,Canada.Based on 186 independent pedon sites,the evaluation of the disaggregated map of soil subgroups showed an overall accuracy of 67% and a Kappa statistic of 0.62.The map represented a better spatial pattern of soil subgroups in both detail and accuracy compared to a dominant soil subgroup map,which was commonly used in practice.Incorrect predictions mainly occurred in the agricultural plain area and the soil subgroups that are very similar in taxonomy,indicating that new environmental covariates need to be developed.We concluded that the combination of legacy pedon data with similarity-based prediction is an effective solution for soil polygon disaggregation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".