Towards robust smart data-driven soil erodibility index prediction under different scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil erosion is a major cause of damage to agricultural lands in many parts of the world and is of particular concern in semiarid parts of Iran. We use five machine learning techniques—Random Forest (RF), M5P, Reduced Error Pruning Tree (REPTree), Gaussian Processes (GP), and Pace Regression (PR)—under two scenarios to predict soil erodibility in the Dehgolan region, Kurdistan Province, Iran. Our models are based on a variety of soil properties, including soil texture, structure, permeability, bulk density, aggregates, organic matter, and chemical constituents. We checked the validity of the models with statistical metrics, including the coefficient of determination (R2), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), T-tests, Taylor diagrams, and box plots. All five algorithms show a positive correlation between the soil erodibility factor (K) and silt, sand, fine sand, bulk density, and infiltration. The GP model has the highest prediction accuracy (R2 = 0.843, MAE = 0.0044, RMSE = 0.0050). It outperformed the RF (R2 = 0.812, MAE = 0.0050, RMSE = 0.0061), PR, (R2 = 0.794, MAE = 0.0037, RMSE = 0.0052), M5P (R2 = 0.781, MAE = 0.0043, RMSE = 0.0053), and REPTree (R2 = 0.752, MAE = 0.0045, RMSE = 0.0056) algorithms and thus is a useful complement to studies aimed at predicting soil erodibility in areas with similar climate and soil characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".