Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Key Textural Properties from LUCAS and ICRAF Spectral Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil texture is a key soil property influencing many agronomic practices including fertilization and liming. Therefore, an accurate estimation of soil texture is essential for adopting sustainable soil management practices. In this study, we used different machine learning algorithms trained on vis–NIR spectra from existing soil spectral libraries (ICRAF and LUCAS) to predict soil textural fractions (sand–silt–clay %). In addition, we predicted the soil textural groups (G1: Fine, G2: Medium, and G3: Coarse) using routine chemical characteristics as auxiliary. With the ICRAF dataset, multilayer perceptron resulted in good predictions for sand and clay (R2 = 0.78 and 0.85, respectively) and categorical boosting outperformed the other algorithms (random forest, extreme gradient boosting, linear regression) for silt prediction (R2 = 0.81). For the LUCAS dataset, categorical boosting consistently showed a high performance for sand, silt, and clay predictions (R2 = 0.79, 0.76, and 0.85, respectively). Furthermore, the soil texture groups (G1, G2, and G3) were classified using the light gradient boosted machine algorithm with a high accuracy (83% and 84% for ICRAF and LUCAS, respectively). These results, using spectral data, are very promising for rapid diagnosis of soil texture and group in order to adjust agricultural practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".