Model Prediction of the Soil Moisture Regime and Soil Nutrient Regime Based on DEM-Derived Topo-Hydrologic Variables for Mapping Ecosites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecosites are required for stand-level forest management and can be determined within a two-dimensional edatopic grid with soil nutrient regimes (SNRs) and soil moisture regimes (SMRs) as coordinates. A new modeling method is introduced in this study to map high-resolution SNR and SMR and then to design ecosites in Nova Scotia, Canada. Using coarse-resolution soil maps and nine topo-hydrologic variables derived from high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) data as model inputs, 511 artificial neural network (ANN) models were developed by a 10-fold cross-validation with 1507 field samples to estimate 10 m resolution SNR and SMR maps. The results showed that the optimal models for mapping SNR and SMR engaged eight and seven topo-hydrologic variables, together with three coarse-resolution soil maps, as model inputs, respectively; 82% of model-estimated SNRs were identical to field assessments, while this value was 61% for SMRs, and the produced ecosite maps had 67–68% correctness. According to the error matrix, the predicted SNR and SMR maps greatly alleviated poor prediction in the areas of extreme nutrient or moisture conditions (e.g., very poor or very rich, wet, or very dry). Thus, the new method for modeling high-resolution SNR and SMR could be used to produce ecosite maps in sites where accessibility is hard.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".