MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040646074 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-14-0039.1

Monitoring Agricultural Risk in Canada Using L-Band Passive Microwave Soil Moisture from SMOS

2014· article· en· W2040646074 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Champagne, Andrew Davidson, Patrick Cherneski, Jessika L’Heureux, Trevor Hadwen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater contentAnomaly (physics)SatelliteMoistureClimatologyFlooding (psychology)Hydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Soil moisture from Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS) passive microwave satellite data was assessed as an information source for identifying regions experiencing climate-related agricultural risk for a period from 2010 to 2013. Both absolute soil moisture and soil moisture anomalies compared to a 4-yr SMOS satellite baseline were used in the assessment. The 4-yr operational period of SMOS was wetter than the 30-yr climate normal in many locations, particularly in the late summer for most regions and in the spring for the province of Manitoba. This leads to a somewhat unrepresentative baseline that skews anomaly measures at different parts of the growing season. SMOS soil moisture does, however, show a clear trend where extremes are present, with drier-than-average conditions during periods that drought and dry soil risks were identified and wetter-than-average conditions when flooding and excess moisture were present. Areas where extreme weather events caused crop losses were identifiable using SMOS soil moisture, both at the provincial and regional scales. The variability in soil moisture between at-risk areas and normal areas is very small but consistent, both geographically and over time, making SMOS a good real-time indicator for risk assessment.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrometeorologySame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207