Predictive map of soil texture classes using decision tree model and neural network with features of geomorphology level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to compare decision tree (DT) and artificial neural network (ANN) models, in addition, the efficiency of geomorphic surface attributes in predicting soil texture classes. The study area is located in the north of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province, central west Iran, and covers 6875 ha. Ninety-six pedons were excavated on separated geoforms. Soil samples of top soil (A horizon) were analyzed for clay, sand, and silt contents. Totally 57 auxiliary variables, including the derivatives of digital elevation model (DEM), Landsat 8 images, geomorphic surface map, geology map, and land-use map, were used to predict both soil texture classes and soil particle size fractions. Root-mean-square error (RMSE), R² or the coefficient of determination ( R_square), overall accuracy, and Kappa coefficient were selected as criteria for evaluating model performance. The R-square coefficients of clay, silt, and sand fractions for both models, respectively, were 0.41, 0.25, and 0.63 for ANN and 0.52, 0.62, and 0.75 for DT. According to RMSE, R-square, overall accuracy, and Kapa coefficient of validation data, the DT model produced better prediction fits to the both soil particle-size fraction and soil texture classes and was the most accurate classifier model. The parameters were 0.59, 0.09, 0.66, and 0.24 for ANN and 0.41, 0.75, 0.76, and 0.60 for DT models, respectively. The accuracy of each individual soil texture class was generally dependent upon the number of soil texture observations in each texture class. According to this fact, both models had better prediction for silty clay loam and clay loam texture classes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".