MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825002156 · doi:10.1002/2013jg002493

Mapping global seasonal forest background reflectivity with Multi‐angle Imaging Spectroradiometer data

2014· article· en· W1825002156 on OpenAlexaff
Tong Jiao, Ronggao Liu, Yang Liu, Jan Písek, Jing M. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaEesti TeadusfondiNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDeciduousEnvironmental scienceModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerLeaf area indexTaigaUnderstoryCanopyRemote sensingSpectroradiometerTree canopyPhysical geographyForest inventoryGeographyAtmospheric sciencesReflectivityForestryForest managementSatelliteGeologyEcologyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Forest background reflectivities with seasonal and spatial variations are critically important in the estimation of canopy biophysical parameters of the forest canopy. In this paper, seasonal background reflectivity for global forested areas was mapped at 1.1 km resolution using four‐scale model and Multi‐angle Imaging Spectroradiometer data of the nadir and 45° forward directions. The largest seasonal variation of forest background reflectivities was observed in middle and high latitudes of Northern Hemisphere. The background reflectivity differs between deciduous broadleaf forest and coniferous forest in the near‐infrared band and varies with increasing canopy leaf area index. The partial validation of forest background reflectivity with adjacent grassland in the Northern Hemisphere and the comparison of understory leaf area index on leaf appearance day for larch forest in North Asia both indicate the relative reliability of results. The nearly 70% spatial coverage of retrieval with high‐quality flags makes it eligible for applications over global coniferous and deciduous broadleaf forest areas.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research BiogeosciencesSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207