Compositional and Machine Learning Tools to Model Plant Nutrition: Overview and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ceteris paribus assumption that all features are equal except the one(s) being examined limits the reliability of nutrient diagnosis and fertilizer recommendations. The objective of this paper is to review machine learning (ML) and compositional data analysis (CoDa) tools to make nutrient management feature specific. The accuracy of the ML methods averaged 84% across the crops. The additive and orthogonal log ratios of CoDa reduce a D-parts soil composition to D-1 variables, alleviating redundancy in the predictive ML models. Using a Brazilian onion (Allium cepa) database, the combined CoDa and ML methods returned crop response patterns, allowing feature-specific fertilizer recommendations to be made. The centered log ratio (clr) diagnoses plant nutrients as a compositional nutrient diagnosis (CND). Using a Quebec database of vegetable crops, the mean variance of clr variables (VAR¯) allowed comparing total variance among species and growth stages. While clr is the summation of equally weighted dual log ratios, dual nutrient log ratios may show unequal importance regarding crop performance. The RReliefF scores, gain ratios or gini inequality coefficients can provide weighting coefficients for each dual log ratio. The widely contrasting coefficients of weighted log ratios (wlr) improved the accuracy of the ML models for a Quebec muck onion database. The ML models, VAR¯ and wlr, are advanced tools to improve the accuracy of nutrient diagnosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".