Evaluation of leaf area index estimated from medium spatial resolution remote sensing data in a broadleaf deciduous forest in southern England, UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf area index (LAI) is a key biophysical variable influencing land surface fluxes. Different algorithms have been developed to estimate LAI from remote sensing data. This prompts the need for an evaluation of their comparability and performance. We present an evaluation of the comparability of four products (i.e., MODIS (MOD15A2), NN-MERIS, CYCLOPES, and GLOBCARBON) and their performance against in situ LAI for an entire growing season in a broadleaf deciduous forest. All the LAI products detected the phenological trend of this biome reasonably accurately, albeit with differences in absolute values. The MODIS LAI was higher than the in situ LAI throughout the growing season whereas the GLOBCARBON LAI was higher in the summer months. The NN-MERIS was closest to the in situ measurements whereas the CYCLOPES product was lower than the in situ measurements. The NN-MERIS and CYCLOPES LAI were closely matched (RMSE = 0.45), whereas MODIS and CYCLOPES LAI were the most divergent (RMSE = 1.57). All the algorithms were significantly different (p < 0.05) indicating a need for more efforts to harmonize these algorithms. Finally, the spatial consistency between the NN-MERIS LAI and in situ LAI revealed a season dependency trend. Better spatial agreement was observed during the summer season as opposed to early spring and autumn seasons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".