MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214928625 · doi:10.7745/kjssf.2022.55.1.058

Prediction of Soil Organic Carbon Contents of Rice Paddies in South-Western Coastal Area of Korea Using Random Forest Models

2022· article· en· W4214928625 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersRural Development Administration
KeywordsSiltEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceSoil waterSoil carbonSoil testVegetation (pathology)Total organic carbonHydrology (agriculture)Soil surveySoil textureGeologyEnvironmental chemistryGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random forest models (RFM) are useful in predicting the soil carbon (C) contents because RFM predicts soil C with high accuracy under complicated environmental conditions. However, there are very few studies on prediction of soil C using RFM in Korea. Moreover, there is no case study using RFM to predict soil C content of reclaimed tideland (RTL) soils, which have high C sequestration capacity. Therefore, in this study, the applicability of RFM was evaluated using published soil properties data, including soil C and soil variables, for RTL soils located in southwestern coastal areas of Korea. In the present study, RFM was built using the data of 16 variables (e.g., sand, silt, and clay contents, pH, electrical conductivity of saturated soil paste (EC e ), and nutrient concentrations) obtained from five RTLs with similar climate, topography, and vegetation. The 80% of the total data were trained to build the model, and searched optimal hyper parameters were used to improve accuracy. The determination coefficient (R 2 ) of the model was 0.67, and the difference between measured and predicted soil C content was 25.9% on average. However, when the measured values were out of the range of the data trained for building the model or the measured values were close to the minimum or maximum value, the difference between the predicted and measured values became larger (73.9%). The contribution of the independent variables to the prediction of soil C using the model was the greatest (14.9%) for soil NH 4 + concentrations. Meanwhile, the contribution of EC e , which was highly correlated with soil C content, was not detected, suggesting that the importance of the number and range of training data used to build model. Our study shows the possible application of RFM to predict soil C contents of RTL soils in Korea, and further highlights that a large amount of data should be accumulated for high accuracy prediction of soil C using RFM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.166 · 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