MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378227290 · doi:10.3390/su15118511

Regional-Scale Topsoil Organic Matter Estimation Based on a Geographic Detector Model Using Landsat Data, Pingtan Island, Fujian, China

2023· article· en· W4378227290 on OpenAlexaff
Junjun Fang, Xiaomei Li, Jinming Sha, Taifeng Dong, Jiali Shang, Eshetu Shifaw, Yung-Chih Su, Jinliang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrigingMultivariate interpolationMean squared errorVegetation (pathology)Interpolation (computer graphics)Sampling (signal processing)Scale (ratio)TerrainEnvironmental scienceOrdinary least squaresRemote sensingMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceCartographyGeographyDetectorArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the spatial distribution of soil organic matter (SOM) is important for land use management, but conventional sampling methods require significant human and financial resources. How to map SOM and monitor its changes using a limited number of sample points combined with remote sensing techniques that provide long-time series data is crucial. This study aimed to generate a regional-scale near-surface SOM map using 70 soil samples and covariate environmental factors extracted mainly from Landsat 8 OLI. Firstly, the sensitivity of each environmental factor to SOM was tested using a geographic detector model (GDM). Secondly, the tested factors were selected for modeling and mapping by ordinary least squares (OLS) and geographically weighted regression kriging (GWRK). The performance of these two models was compared. Finally, the mapping results of the better model (GWRK) were compared and analyzed with the traditional interpolation results based solely on sampling points to verify the rationality of the proposed method. The results show that three environmental factors, ratio vegetation index (RVI), differential vegetation index (DVI), and terrain roughness (TR), have a strong influence on the spatial variability of SOM. Using these three factors in combination with the GWRK method, a more accurate and refined spatial distribution map of SOM can be obtained. Comparing the SOM maps of GWRK and the traditional interpolation method, the results show that the accuracy of GWRK (R2 = 0.405; mean absolute error = 0.637, and root mean square error = 0.813) is higher than that of traditional interpolation methods (R2 = 0.291, MAE = 0.609, and RMSE = 0.863). The spatial recognition rate (fineness) of SOM patches at all levels using the GWRK method increased by more than 73 times compared to the traditional kriging. We conclude that the combination of limited SOM samples, environmental variables, GDM, and GWRK is a pragmatic approach for estimating regional-scale SOM.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207