MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A framework for optimizing environmental covariates to support model interpretability in digital soil mapping

2024· article· en· W4393965366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Babak Kasraei, Margaret Schmidt, Chuck Bulmer, Deepa S. Filatow, Adrienne Arbor, Travis Pennell, Brandon Heung

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoderma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityGovernment of British ColumbiaMinistry of ForestsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityCovariateDigital soil mappingComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEconometricsData scienceStatisticsMachine learningMathematicsSoil scienceSoil mapSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common practice in digital soil mapping (DSM) is to incorporate many environmental covariates into a machine-learning algorithm to predict the spatial patterns of soil attributes. Variance inflation factor (VIF), principal component analysis (PCA), and recursive feature elimination (RFE) are three statistical methods that can be used to reduce the number of covariates. This study aims 1) to compare VIF and PCA approaches; 2) to identify an approach to determine the minimum number of covariates in DSM to ensure model parsimony using RFE after using VIF; and 3) to examine methods to interpret the impact of covariates on the variability of the predicted soil properties. The study area was the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada. This study used legacy data for four soil properties to make digital soil maps: soil organic carbon (SOC%), pH, clay%, and coarse fragment (CF%). Seven models were made for each soil property to determine the influence on validation results by using a different number of covariates produced by various methods on validation results. The results showed that the number of covariates could be reduced from 70 to 4 to 12 with only a little or no difference in concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) validation results. The CCC results of pH models using 70 and 7 covariates were both 0.74, and for other soil properties, this difference was negligible. The validation results obtained from PCA models showed that the performance of PCA in reducing the number of covariates was not as effective as when using VIF. Moreover, this study showed that covariates related to precipitation were the most important for modeling SOC%, soil pH, and clay%. Topographic covariates were the most influential covariates for modeling soil CF%. This study emphasizes the potential benefits of combining various data reduction methods to achieve optimal outcomes and generate the most parsimonious and interpretable models.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations66
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeodermaSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207