Improving a regional peat thickness map using soil apparent electrical conductivity measurements at the field-scale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it