AI and machine learning for soil analysis: an assessment of sustainable agricultural practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable agricultural practices help to manage and use natural resources efficiently. Due to global climate and geospatial land design, soil texture, soil-water content (SWC), and other parameters vary greatly; thus, real time, robust, and accurate soil analytical measurements are difficult to be developed. Conventional statistical analysis tools take longer to analyze and interpret data, which may have delayed a crucial decision. Therefore, this review paper is presented to develop the researcher's insight toward robust, accurate, and quick soil analysis using artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning (DL), and machine learning (ML) platforms to attain robustness in SWC and soil texture analysis. Machine learning algorithms, such as random forests, support vector machines, and neural networks, can be employed to develop predictive models based on available soil data and auxiliary environmental variables. Geostatistical techniques, including kriging and co-kriging, help interpolate and extrapolate soil property values to unsampled locations, improving the spatial representation of the data set. The false positivity in SWC results and bugs in advanced detection techniques are also evaluated, which may lead to wrong agricultural practices. Moreover, the advantages of AI data processing over general statistical analysis for robust and noise-free results have also been discussed in light of smart irrigation technologies. Conclusively, the conventional statistical tools for SWCs and soil texture analysis are not enough to practice and manage ergonomic land management. The broader geospatial non-numeric data are more suitable for AI processing that may soon help soil scientists develop a global SWC database.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".