Evaluation of Optimized Preprocessing and Modeling Algorithms for Prediction of Soil Properties Using VIS-NIR Spectroscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The absorbance spectra for air-dried and ground soil samples from Ontario, Canada were collected in the visible and near-infrared (VIS-NIR) region from 343 to 2200 nm. The study examined thirteen combination of six preprocessing (1st derivative, 2nd derivative, Savitzky-Golay, Gap, SNV and Detrend) method included in ‘prospectr’ R package along with four modeling approaches: partial least square regression (PLSR), cubist, random forest (RF), and extreme learning machine (ELM) for prediction of the soil organic matter (SOM). The 1st derivative + gap, 2nd derivative + gap and standard normal variance (SNV) were the best preprocessing algorithms. Thus, only these three preprocessing algorithms along with four modeling approaches were used for prediction of soil pH, electrical conductively (EC), %sand, %silt, %clay, %very coarse sand (VCS), %coarse sand (CS), %medium sand (ms) and %fine sand (fs). The results showed that OM, pH, %sand, %silt and %CS were all predicted with confidence (R2 > 0.60) and the combination of 1st derivative + gap and RF gained the best performance. A detailed comparison of the preprocessing and modeling algorithms for various soil properties in this study demonstrate that for better prediction of soil properties using VIS-NIR spectroscopy requires different preprocessing and modeling algorithms. However, in general RF and 1st derivative + gap can be labeled at the best combination of preprocessing and modelling algorithms.
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.
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 it