MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389274253 · doi:10.3389/fsoil.2023.1305105

Improving a regional peat thickness map using soil apparent electrical conductivity measurements at the field-scale

2023· article· en· W4389274253 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raphaël Deragon, Brandon Heung, Nicholas Lefebvre, Kingsley John, Athyna N. Cambouris, Jean Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Soil Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatKrigingSoil scienceDigital soil mappingLinear regressionCovariateRegression analysisScale (ratio)Mean squared errorDigital elevation modelEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsSoil mapSoil waterStatisticsGeologyRemote sensingGeographyCartographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The increased adoption of proximal sensors has helped to generate peat mapping products: they gather data quickly and can detect the peat-mineral later boundary. A third layer, made of sedimentary peat (limnic layers, gyttja), can sometimes be found in between them. This material is highly variable spatially and is associated with degraded soil properties when located near the surface. Methods This study aimed to assess the potential of direct current resistivity measurements to predict the maximum peat thickness (MPT), defined as the non-limnic peat thickness, to facilitate soil conservation and management practices at the field-scale. The results were also compared to a regional map of the MPT from a previous study used and also tested as a covariate. This study was conducted in a shallow (MPT = 8-138 cm) cultivated organic soil from Québec, Canada. The MPT was mapped using the apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) from a Veris Q2800, and a digital elevation model, with and without a regional MPT map (RM) as a covariate to downscale it. Three machine-learning algorithms (Cubist, Random Forest, and Support Vector Regression) were compared to ordinary kriging (OK), multiple linear regression, and multiple linear regression kriging (MLRK) models. Results and discussion The best predictive performance was achieved with OK (Lin’s CCC = 0.89, RMSE = 13.75 cm), followed by MLRK-RM (CCC = 0.85, RMSE = 15.7 cm). All models were more accurate than the RM (CCC = 0.65, RMSE = 29.85 cm), although they underpredicted MPT > 100 cm. Moreover, the addition of the RM as a covariate led to a lower prediction error and higher accuracy for all models. Overall, a field-scale approach could better support precision soil conservation interventions by generating more accurate management zones. Future studies should test multi-sensor fusion and other geophysical sensors to further improve the model performance and detect deeper boundaries.

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)0.001
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207