A Proposed Methodology for Determining the Economically Optimal Number of Sample Points for Carbon Stock Estimation in the Canadian Prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration assessment requires accurate and effective tools for measuring baseline SOC stocks. An emerging technique for estimating baseline SOC stocks is predictive soil mapping (PSM). A key challenge for PSM is determining sampling density requirements, specifically, determining the economically optimal number of samples for predictive soil mapping for SOC stocks. In an attempt to answer this question, data were used from 3861 soil organic carbon samples collected as part of routine agronomic soil testing from a 4702 ha farming operation in Saskatchewan, Canada. A predictive soil map was built using all the soil data to calculate the total carbon stock for the entire study area. The dataset was then subset using conditioned Latin hypercube sampling (cLHS), both conventional and stratified by slope position, to determine the total carbon stocks with the following sampling densities (points per ha): 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8. A nonlinear error function was then fit to the data, and the optimal number of samples was determined based on the number of samples that minimized soil data costs and the value of the soil carbon stock prediction error. The stratified cLHS required fewer samples to achieve the same level of accuracy compared to conventional cLHS, and the optimal number of samples was more sensitive to carbon price than sampling costs. Overall, the optimal sampling density ranged from 0.025 to 0.075 samples per hectare.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".