MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconstructing soil acidity neutralization curves using Machine learning and chemical or spectral soil signatures

2025· article· en· W7113895743 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoderma · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRio TintoGraymont
KeywordsLimeTitrationTitration curveMean squared errorSoil pHSoil testLearning curveChemometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Machine learning accurately reconstructs full soil titration curves using Ca(OH) 2 and standard soil inputs. • Models achieve R 2 > 0.92 and RMSE < 0.21 pH units, ensuring precision across soil types. • Dynamic lime prescriptions are derived from fitted titration curves and allow target-specific flexibility. • Spectral (SSM) and hybrid (HM) models offer rapid, reagent-free, and scalable alternatives to SMP. • A tiered deployment strategy enables labs to adopt models based on existing analytical capacities. Soil acidity management often relies on lime recommendation methods that are imprecise, time-consuming, or involve hazardous reagents like the SMP buffer solution. This study introduces an alternative approach by developing and evaluating machine learning (ML) models to predict the change in soil pH (ΔpH) following incremental applications of hydrated lime (Ca(OH) 2 ). A total of 418 soil samples from Eastern North America were analyzed for their chemical properties, mid-infrared (MIR) spectral signatures, and complete titration curves obtained through acid-base neutralization. Three ML models were tested: a Chemical Signature Model (CSM) based on routine soil analyses, a Spectral Signature Model (SSM) relying solely on MIR spectra, and a Hybrid Model (HM) combining both data sources. All models demonstrated high accuracy, achieving R 2 values above 92 % and RMSE values below 0.21 pH units. The HM achieved the highest performance (R 2 = 94 %, RMSE = 0.18), closely followed by the SSM, indicating the practical equivalence of the two approaches since converting ΔpH curves into absolute pH curves always requires the initial soil pH. SHapley Additive exPlanations ( SHAP) values were used to interpret variable importance in each model. In the CSM, lime dose and initial pH were dominant predictors, followed by organic matter, Mehlich-3 extractable Ca (Ca M3 ), and Al (Al M3 ). In the SSM and HM models, specific MIR spectral regions corresponding to hydroxyl, carboxylic, silicate, and organo-mineral functional groups were highly informative, confirming consistency with known soil chemistry principles. These findings enable the automated reconstruction of titration curves, paving the way for dynamic, accurate, and safe lime recommendation systems tailored to laboratory capabilities: CSM for immediate implementation and SSM or HM for laboratories adopting MIR spectroscopy. This approach aligns with precision agriculture principles, supporting sustainable and site-specific management of soil acidity.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeodermaSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207