Evaluating performance of miniaturized spectrometers in predicting soil properties using multivariate statistical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing use of portable, low-cost spectrometers in estimating soil properties, there is lack of documentation regarding the factors contributing to the lower performance of these spectrometers when compared to conventional ones. This study investigates potential factors influencing performance of the Nanoquest, a low-cost spectrometer, in estimating soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen (TN). To conduct the study, five different models (cubist, partial least squares regression, support vector machines, random forest, and generalised boosted models) were tested for the estimation SOC and TN and a fivefold cross-validation analysis was conducted for model hyperparameter optimization. The Nanoquest achieved a Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) value of 0.84 and an R2 value of 0.74 for SOC. For TN, CCC values of 0.86 and an R2 value of 0.78 were obtained. To understand the impact of the spectral range and spectral resolution on SOC and TN estimation, the ASD spectra were digitally resampled to match the Nanoquest spectral range and resolution. This resampling resulted in a slight decrease in model performance for the spectral range and a more pronounced decrease for the spectral resolution.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".