A Comprehensive Study Of Artificial Intelligence Applications For Soil Temperature Prediction
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
Soil temperature is a fundamental parameter in water resources and engineering. A cost-effective model which can forecast soil temperature accurately is extensively needed. Recently, many studies have applied artificial intelligence (AI) at both surface and underground levels for soil temperature prediction. However, there is no comprehensive and detailed assessment of the performance of different AI approaches in soil temperature estimation, and primarily limited atmospheric variables are used as input data for AI models. In the present study, great varieties of various land and atmospheric variables are applied to evaluate the performance of a wide range of AI methods on soil temperature prediction. Herein, thirteen approaches, from classic regressions to well-established methods of random forest and gradient boosting to advanced AI techniques like multi-layer perceptron and deep learning are taken into account. The results show that AI is a promising approach in climate parameter forecast and deep learning demonstrates the best performance among other models. It has the highest R-squared ranging from 0.957 to 0.980, the lowest NRMSE ranging from 2.237% to 3.287% and the lowest MAE, ranging from 0.510 to 0.743 in predicting soil temperature. The prediction is repeated for different sizes of data, and prediction outcomes confirm the conclusion mentioned above.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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