MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317932495 · doi:10.3390/w15030473

Spatial Interpolation of Soil Temperature and Water Content in the Land-Water Interface Using Artificial Intelligence

2023· article· en· W4317932495 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hanifeh Imanian, Hamidreza Shirkhani, Abdolmajid Mohammadian, Juan Hiedra Cobo, Pierre Payeur

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Multivariate interpolationSpline (mechanical)Artificial neural networkRadial basis functionSpline interpolationMean squared errorSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceData pointWater contentComputer scienceAlgorithmRemote sensingMachine learningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeographyStatisticsEngineeringBilinear interpolationGeotechnical engineeringComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distributed measured data in large regions and remote locations, along with a need to estimate climatic data for point sites where no data have been recorded, has encouraged the implementation of spatial interpolation techniques. Recently, the increasing use of artificial intelligence has become a promising alternative to conventional deterministic algorithms for spatial interpolation. The present study aims to evaluate some machine learning-based algorithms against conventional strategies for interpolating soil temperature data from a region in southeast Canada with an area of 1000 km by 550 km. The radial basis function neural networks (RBFN) and the deep learning approach were used to estimate soil temperature along a railroad after the spline deterministic spatial interpolation method failed to interpolate gridded soil temperature data on the desired locations. The spline method showed weaknesses in interpolating soil temperature data in areas with sudden changes. This limitation did not improve even by increasing the spline nonlinearity. Although both radial basis function neural networks and the deep learning approach had successful performances in interpolating soil temperature data even in sharp transition areas, deep learning outperformed the former method with a normalized RMSE of 9.0% against 16.2% and an R-squared of 89.2% against 53.8%. This finding was confirmed in the same investigation on soil water content.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207