MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409606814 · doi:10.3390/s25082583

Enhanced Prediction of Soil Carbon via Encoder-Decoder Neural Networks for a Boreal Study Area in Northern Ontario

2025· article· en· W4409606814 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rory Pittman, Baoxin Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceConvolutional neural networkLand coverRandom forestArtificial neural networkBorealComputer scienceRemote sensingSoil scienceMachine learningLand useGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing the impacts of carbon in connection with land cover conversion and climate change is of predominant interest for boreal realms. Consequently, boosting accuracy for the prediction of total carbon (C) with soil mapping is a crucial objective, particularly for a boreal study area under risk of land cover transition in northern Ontario, Canada. To enhance the prediction of soil modeling, integrated approaches combining encoder-decoder (ED) with dense neural network (DNN) and convolutional neural network (CNN) formulations suitable for smaller target data sets were developed. These methods were able to effectively extract dominant features within predictor data and augment modeling accuracy. The obtained results were compared with those attained from structural equation modeling (SEM) and random forest (RF), as well as basic DNN and CNN models. A model ensemble based on all approaches was also considered, from which standard deviations were calculated to gauge the prediction uncertainty. Quantile mappings with respect to deciles were also derived from the model ensemble to provide additional insights with prediction. Validation accuracies for the ED-CNN model attained a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.59. The greatest deviations with predicting C contents corresponded to the wetlands. However, when quantified by decile mapping, forested localities within river valleys encountered the highest uncertainties with prediction, indicting a need for better modeling of sites with intermediate concentrations of soil C.

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)0.000
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207