MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320486209 · doi:10.1190/geo2022-0476.1

Predictive lithology mapping using semisupervised learning: Practical insights using a case study from New South Wales, Australia

2023· article· en· W4320486209 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael W. Dunham, Alison Malcolm, J. Kim Welford

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Memorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChevron
KeywordsHyperparameterMachine learningComputer scienceOverfittingArtificial intelligenceSupervised learningBoosting (machine learning)Bootstrapping (finance)Gradient boostingMathematicsRandom forestArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We develop a comprehensive study involving three different types of machine learning (unsupervised, supervised, and semisupervised, which we emphasize) for bedrock-lithology classification using a publicly available data set from New South Wales, Australia. The goal of this work is to demonstrate (1) the value each different type of machine learning can provide and (2) which machine learning type(s) may be preferable under different circumstances. Training data are characteristically limited for geoscience problems, which makes supervised techniques susceptible to overfitting; we explore if semisupervised methods can perform better in these circumstances. Using the geophysical data and geologic map provided for the study area, we compare the performance of two supervised methods (the Light Gradient Boosting Machine and eXtreme Gradient Boosting) with one semisupervised algorithm (label propagation [LP]) in three scenarios with varied limited a priori lithologic constraints (i.e., the training data). Hyperparameter tuning is an essential component of supervised and semisupervised techniques, and the default procedure is to choose the hyperparameter combination with the largest mean cross-validation score. However, we use a new hyperparameter selection strategy that simultaneously uses the mean and standard deviation scores, and we test this new tactic for supervised and semisupervised methods. The results indicate (1) that the new hyperparameter selection technique can slightly improve the performance for supervised and semisupervised methods by 1%–2% compared with the standard selection approach and (2) that LP can outperform the two supervised methods by up to 10%, but it depends on how the training data are distributed. As for the unsupervised analysis, the clusters indicate heterogeneous regions that correlate well with the high-entropy areas in the supervised and semisupervised results. The clustering provides complementary results to the other two types of machine learning and is a source of supporting evidence for suggesting where more in-depth field mapping may be needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207