MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888780080 · doi:10.22059/jdesert.2023.95533

Modeling the spatial distribution of sand, silt, and clay particles based on GlobalSoilMap and Limited Data

2023· article· en· W6888780080 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestCovariateSpatial distributionDigital soil mappingLinear regressionDecision treeFeature (linguistics)Mean squared errorRegression analysisSpatial variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many regions of Iran lack digital map of soil properties. The Chahardowli plain in western Iran is one of these areas. Due to the importance of sand, silt, and clay components, having quantitative and continuous data on abrupt changes in these two properties in this area is very critical. Therefore, to study sand, silt, and clay, samples were taken at depths of 0–5, 5–15, 15–30, 30–60, and 60–100 cm, according to GlobalSoilMap. Finally, 145 samples were collected from 30 soil profiles. The significant covariates were selected by Random Forest Recursive Feature Elimination (RF-RFE). Relationships between these characteristics and environmental predictors were modeled using random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), and multiple linear regression (MLR) models. The accuracy and precision of the models used for all three particles showed that the RF model had the most accurate prediction with R2 and RMSE of 0.82 and 2.34 for clay, 0.80 and 3.87 for sand, and 0.85 and 2.89 for silt, respectively. In this study, terrain-based variables had a greater impact on improving accuracy than remote-sensing variables. The current study showed that even with limited information, digital mapping of sand, silt, and clay particles under GlobalSoilMap and the use of environmental factors can provide acceptable results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207