Applying machine learning methods to predict geology using soil sample geochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we compared various machine learning techniques that used soil geochemistry to aid in geologic mapping. We tested six different sampling methods (undersample, oversample, Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE), Adaptive Synthetic Sampling (ADASYN), SMOTE and Edited Nearest Neighbor (SMOTEENN), and SMOTE and Tomek links (SMOTETomek)). SMOTE performed best with ADASYN and SMOTETomek having slightly lower effectiveness. Nine machine learning algorithms (naïve Bayes, logistic regression, quadratic discriminant analysis, nearest neighbors, radial basis function support-vector machine, artificial neural network, random forest, AdaBoost classifier, and gradient boosting classifier) were compared and AdaBoost classifiers and gradient boosting classifiers were found to be most effective. Finally, we experimented with multiple classifier systems (MCS) testing different combinations of algorithms and various combinatorial functions. It was found that MCS can outperform individual models, and the best MCS combined nearest neighbors, radial basis function support-vector machine, artificial neural network, random forest, AdaBoost classifiers, and gradient boosting classifier, then applied a logistic regression to the probabilities output by the models. Ultimately, we created a tool that is able to adequately predict underlying geology in the study area using soil geochemistry.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".