MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220783138 · doi:10.3390/agronomy12030628

Spatiotemporal Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon Change Using Machine-Learning in Arid Regions

2022· article· en· W4220783138 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Fathizad, Ruhollah Taghizadeh‐Mehrjardi, Mohammad Ali Hakimzadeh Ardakani, Mojtaba Zeraatpisheh, Brandon Heung, Thomas Scholten

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital soil mappingSoil carbonEnvironmental scienceRandom forestVegetation (pathology)Normalized Difference Vegetation IndexSampling (signal processing)Latin hypercube samplingRemote sensingSoil organic matterSoil scienceSoil waterSoil mapClimate changeComputer scienceMachine learningMathematicsStatisticsEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil organic carbon (SOC) is an essential property of soil, and understanding its spatial patterns is critical to understanding vegetation management, soil degradation, and environmental issues. This study applies a framework using remote sensing data and digital soil mapping techniques to examine the spatiotemporal dynamics of SOC for the Yazd-Ardakan Plain, Iran, from 1986 to 2016. Here, a conditioned Latin hypercube sampling method was used to select 201 sampling sites. A set of 37 environmental predictors were obtained from Landsat imagery taken in 1986, 1999, 2010 and 2016. Here, SOC was modeled for 2016 using the Random Forest (RF), support vector regression (SVR), and artificial neural networks (ANN) machine-learners by correlating environmental predictors with soil data. The results showed that RF yielded the highest accuracy (R2 = 0.53), compared to the other two learners. By performing a variable importance analysis of the RF model, normalized difference vegetation index, modified vegetation index, and ground-adjusted vegetation index were determined to be the most important environmental predictors. By applying the model calibrated from 2016 data to 1986, 1999 and 2010, the results showed a substantial decrease in SOC; these decreases in SOC were mainly attributed to land use changes and agricultural activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207