MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W138656293 · doi:10.5589/m08-030

Retrieving chlorophyll content in conifer needles from hyperspectral measurements

2008· article· en· W138656293 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yongqin Zhang, Jing M Chen, John R. Miller, Thomas L. Noland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingChlorophyllChlorophyll aBlack spruceCanopyMean squared errorRemote sensingBotanyEnvironmental scienceHorticultureMathematicsBiologyGeographyForestryStatisticsTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spectrally continuous hyperspectral data can be used to detect subtle features in the leaf optical spectra, which correlate especially well with major leaf pigments such as the leaf chlorophyll content. Extensive field and laboratory measurements were carried out at 10 sites in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.)) forests near Sudbury, Canada, to collect leaf optical spectra, leaf pigment contents, and leaf biophysical parameters. It was found that black spruce needles sampled from different sites, age classes, and branch orientations demonstrated variability in both optical properties and chlorophyll contents. The variability in needle optical spectra showed a good correlation (R2 = 0.63) between the average visible absorptance and needle chlorophyll content. The leaf optical model PROSPECT was modified to incorporate the edge effects of needles on light transfer through them. Two leaf biophysical parameters, namely needle width and thickness, were introduced into the model to take into account the effects of leaf morphology on chlorophyll content retrieval. With the modifications to PROSPECT, the model can capture the variability of needle optical properties and chlorophyll content from the measurements. The retrieval of needle chlorophyll contents was improved with an accuracy of R2 = 0.59 and root mean squared error of RMSE = 6.32 µg/cm2 compared with the original PROSPECT model with an accuracy of R2 = 0.31 and RMSE = 9.51 µg/cm2.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207