Spatial Interpolation of Soil Temperature and Water Content in the Land-Water Interface Using Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".