Prediction of thermal conductivity of frozen soils from basic soil properties using ensemble learning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Two ensemble learning methods-based models are proposed to evaluate the thermal conductivity of frozen soils using easily measured parameters. • The temperature range has a more significant impact on the unfrozen water content than on the thermal conductivity of frozen soils. • The model based on the boosting algorithm performs better on the dataset than the model based on the bagging algorithm. Thermal conductivity is one of the important properties required for understanding the frozen soils behavior. There are several models available in the literature for the prediction of thermal conductivity of frozen soils based on the proportions of unfrozen water, ice, gas, and soil particles. In this study, two ensemble learning methods-based models; namely, the Random Forest (RF) model and the Least Squares Boosting (LSB) model, are extended to estimate the thermal conductivity of frozen soils. These models utilize basic soil properties as input parameters that include water content, dry density, temperature, and fractions of gravel, sand, silt, and clay, can be measured easily, or determined. Additionally, seven widely used thermal conductivity models, referred to as the traditional models for frozen soils, were evaluated. Both the RF and LSB models, as well as the traditional models, were assessed using data of 823 tests derived from 43 soils with different textures that were gathered from the literature. The results highlight that the traditional models have their strengths and limitations in terms of their use for different types of soils. In contrast, the proposed ensemble learning methods-based models provide higher prediction accuracy compared to the traditional models and can be applied to all soil types and temperature ranges. Furthermore, estimation from the ensemble learning methods-based models can be used to provide probability of multi-dimensional analysis of frozen soils.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".