MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980742489 · doi:10.3390/rs2010375

Combining Satellite Remote Sensing Data with the FAO-56 Dual Approach for Water Use Mapping In Irrigated Wheat Fields of a Semi-Arid Region

2010· article· en· W1980742489 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Salah Er‐Raki, Abdelghani Chehbouni, B. Duchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Cadi AyyadCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Universitaire de la FrancophonieStrongInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCrop coefficientNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexAridRemote sensingEddy covarianceIrrigationVegetation (pathology)Growing seasonHydrology (agriculture)Spatial distributionEvapotranspirationLeaf area indexAgronomyGeographyEcosystemGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to combine the FAO-56 dual approach and remotely-sensed data for mapping water use (ETc) in irrigated wheat crops of a semi-arid region. The method is based on the relationships established between Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and crop biophysical variables such as basal crop coefficient, cover fraction and soil evaporation. A time series of high spatial resolution SPOT and Landsat images acquired during the 2002/2003 agricultural season has been used to generate the profiles of NDVI in each pixel that have been related to crop biophysical parameters which were used in conjunction with FAO-56 dual source approach. The obtained results showed that the spatial distribution of seasonal ETc varied between 200 and 450 mm depending to sowing date and the development of the vegetation. The validation of spatial results showed that the ETc estimated by FAO-56 corresponded well with actual ET measured by eddy covariance system over test sites of wheat, especially when soil evaporation and plant water stress are not encountered.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations93
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207