MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1818409852 · doi:10.3390/rs70911776

Capability of Spaceborne Hyperspectral EnMAP Mission for Mapping Fractional Cover for Soil Erosion Modeling

2015· article· en· W1818409852 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Malec, Derek Rogge, Uta Heiden, Arturo Sánchez‐Azofeifa, Martin Bachmann, Martin Wegmann

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingEndmemberEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil erosion can be linked to relative fractional cover of photosynthetic-active vegetation (PV), non-photosynthetic-active vegetation (NPV) and bare soil (BS), which can be integrated into erosion models as the cover-management C-factor. This study investigates the capability of EnMAP imagery to map fractional cover in a region near San Jose, Costa Rica, characterized by spatially extensive coffee plantations and grazing in a mountainous terrain. Simulated EnMAP imagery is based on airborne hyperspectral HyMap data. Fractional cover estimates are derived in an automated fashion by extracting image endmembers to be used with a Multiple End-member Spectral Mixture Analysis approach. The C-factor is calculated based on the fractional cover estimates determined independently for EnMAP and HyMap. Results demonstrate that with EnMAP imagery it is possible to extract quality endmember classes with important spectral features related to PV, NPV and soil, and be able to estimate relative cover fractions. This spectral information is critical to separate BS and NPV which greatly can impact the C-factor derivation. From a regional perspective, we can use EnMAP to provide good fractional cover estimates that can be integrated into soil erosion modeling.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207