Comparison of Random Forest and Kriging Models for Soil Organic Carbon Mapping in the Himalayan Region of Kashmir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge about the spatial distribution of soil organic carbon stock (SOCS) helps in sustainable land-use management and ecosystem functioning. No such study has been attempted in the complex topography and land use of Himalayas, which is associated with great spatial heterogeneity and uncertainties. Therefore, in this study digital soil mapping (DSM) was used to predict and evaluate the spatial distribution of SOCS using advanced geostatistical methods and a machine learning algorithm in the Himalayan region of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Eighty-three soil samples were collected across different land uses. Auxiliary variables (spectral indices and topographic parameters) derived from satellite data were used as predictors. Geostatistical methods—ordinary kriging (OK) and regression kriging (RK)—and a machine learning method—random forest (RF)—were used for assessing the spatial distribution and variability of SOCS with inter-comparison of models for their prediction performance. The best fit model validation criteria used were coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE) with resulting maps validated by cross-validation. The SOCS concentration varied from 1.12 Mg/ha to 70.60 Mg/ha. The semivariogram analysis of OK and RK indicated moderate spatial dependence. RF (RMSE = 8.21) performed better than OK (RMSE = 15.60) and RK (RMSE = 17.73) while OK performed better than RK. Therefore, it may be concluded that RF provides better estimation and spatial variability of SOCS; however, further selection and choice of auxiliary variables and higher soil sampling density could improve the accuracy of RK prediction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".