MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402068747 · doi:10.1016/j.atech.2024.100559

Prediction of carbon dioxide emissions from Atlantic Canadian potato fields using advanced hybridized machine learning algorithms – Nexus of field data and modelling

2024· article· en· W4402068747 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Muhammad Hassan, Khabat Khosravi, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Travis J. Esau, Alaba Boluwade, Rehan Sadiq

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Agricultural Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNexus (standard)Field (mathematics)Carbon dioxideEnvironmental scienceAlgorithmComputer scienceMachine learningMeteorologyChemistryMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

· CO 2 , soil characteristics, and climatic variables collected at three fields in Canada. · Three new ensemble ML models of AR-RF, MS-RF, and ICO-AR-RF were developed for CO 2 prediction. · Air temperature, dew point, and soil temperature are the three most effective variables on CO 2 . · ICO-AR-RF model performed the best, followed by MS-RF and AR-RF. · Uncertainty analysis showed that CO 2 prediction is more sensitive to input than model selection. In this study, three novel machine learning algorithms of additive regression-random forest (AR-RF), Iterative Classifier Optimizer (ICO-AR-RF), and multi-scheme (MS-RF) were explored for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) flux rate prediction from three agricultural fields. To build the dataset, 401 samples were collected from two fields in Prince Edward Island (PEI) and 122 samples from the New Brunswick (NB), Canada. In addition, soil moisture (SM), temperature (ST), and electrical conductivity (EC), alongside eight climatic variables including wind speed (WS), solar radiation (SR), relative humidity (RH), precipitation (PCP), air temperature (AT), dew point (DP), vapour pressure difference (VPD) and reference evapotranspiration (ET o ) were also collected. Greedy stepwise (GS) approach was implemented for feature selection. Finally, different qualitative (scatter plot, line graph, Taylor diagram, box plot, and Rug plot), and quantitative (uncertainty analysis, root mean square error (RMSE), percent of BIAS (PBIAS), Nash Sutcliff efficiency (NSE) and RMSE-observations standard deviation ratio (RSR)) techniques were used for model evaluation and comparison. Results of feature selection approaches revealed that DP, AT, SM, and ST are the four most effective variables at CO 2 prediction in PEI, while AT, RH, DP, and ST are the most effective in the NB study area. For optimum input scenario, the GS algorithm was applied, and results showed that a combination of DP, AT, ST, SM, and ET o was the best for the PEI study area, while for NB, all input variables should be involved. Our analysis, for prediction of CO 2 fluxes, confirmed that the ICO-AR-RF model performed the best at both PEI (RMSE=0.70, NSE=0.76, PBIAS=-5.11, RSR=0.48) and NB (RMSE=0.74, NSE=0.75, PBIAS=3.23, RSR=0.50), followed by MS-RF and AR-RF. Uncertainty analysis showed that CO 2 prediction is more sensitive to input scenario selection than models in both study areas. Results revealed that climatic variables are more effective in CO 2 prediction than soil characteristics and the developed hybrid model ICO-AR-RF can be a promising tool for decision-makers and beneficial for stakeholders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Agricultural TechnologySame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207