MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162544163 · doi:10.3390/land10050517

A Two-Stage Approach to the Estimation of High-Resolution Soil Organic Carbon Storage with Good Extension Capability

2021· article· en· W3162544163 on OpenAlexaff
Sunwei Wei, Zhengyong Zhao, Qi Yang, Xiaogang Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil carbonMean squared errorStage (stratigraphy)Soil scienceEnvironmental scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)KrigingApproximation errorSoil waterMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil organic carbon storage (SOCS) estimation is a crucial branch of the atmospheric–vegetation–soil carbon cycle study under the background of global climate change. SOCS research has increased worldwide. The objective of this study is to develop a two-stage approach with good extension capability to estimate SOCS. In the first stage, an artificial neural network (ANN) model is adopted to estimate SOCS based on 255 soil samples with five soil layers (20 cm increments to 100 cm) in Luoding, Guangdong Province, China. This method is compared with three common methods: The soil type method (STM), ordinary kriging (OK), and radial basis function (RBF) interpolation. In the second stage, a linear model is introduced to capture the regional differences and further improve the estimation accuracy of the Luoding-based ANN model when extending it to Xinxing, Guangdong Province. This is done after assessing the generalizability of the above four methods with 120 soil samples from Xinxing. The results for the first stage show that the ANN model has much better estimation accuracy than STM, OK, and RBF, with the average root mean square error (RMSE) of the five soil layers decreasing by 0.62–0.90 kg·m−2, R2 increasing from 0.54 to 0.65, and the mean absolute error decreasing from 0.32 to 0.42. Moreover, the spatial distribution maps produced by the ANN model are more accurate than those of other methods for describing the overall and local SOCS in detail. The results of the second stage indicate that STM, OK, and RBF have poor generalizability (R2 < 0.1), and the R2 value obtained with ANN method is also 43–56% lower for the five soil layers compared with the estimation accuracy achieved in Luoding. However, the R2 of the linear models built with the 20% soil samples from Xinxing are 0.23–0.29 higher for the five soil layers. Thus, the ANN model is an effective method for accurately estimating SOCS on a regional scale with a small number of field samples. The linear model could easily extend the ANN model to outside areas where the ANN model was originally developed with a better level of accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207