Prediction of topsoil stoniness using soil type information and airborne gamma-ray data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stoniness of topsoil can have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness and quality of work in mechanized forest operations. The operations and their models should be selected on a stand-specific basis, while the physical properties of the soil, including stoniness, to achieve maximum efficiency and to minimize the damage caused by heavy forest machinery. The aim of this study was to examine whether the stoniness of the topsoil can be predicted using the gamma-ray values available from geophysical data collected at low altitude and using soil type information. Stoniness was measured at several sites with various soil types, which were then divided into stoniness index classes (SICs) for further analysis by ordinal regression analysis using gamma-ray and soil type data. The predictions associated with SIC classification were 52% accurate and 79% acceptable (±1 class from the correct class), with kappa values of 0.55 and 0.72, respectively. The SIC prediction results were promising and showed the potential of gamma-ray and soil type data for estimating topsoil stoniness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".