MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206162810 · doi:10.3390/s21206745

Evaluation of Optimized Preprocessing and Modeling Algorithms for Prediction of Soil Properties Using VIS-NIR Spectroscopy

2021· article· en· W3206162810 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rebecca-Jo Vestergaard, Hiteshkumar B. Vasava, Doug Aspinall, Songchao Chen, Adam Gillespie, Viacheslav I. Adamchuk, Asim Biswas

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsPreprocessorAlgorithmSpectroscopyComputer scienceData miningArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207