Single‐ and Multiscale Remote Sensing Techniques, Multifractals, and MODIS‐Derived Vegetation and Soil Moisture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scaling processes are increasingly understood to be the result of nonlinear dynamic mechanisms repeating scale after scale from large to small scales leading to nonclassical resolution dependencies. This means that the statistical properties systematically vary in strong, power‐law ways with the resolution. When present in geophysical and remotely sensed fields, it implies that when classical (single‐scale) remote sensing algorithms are used to determine surrogates of various geophysical fields, they can at most be correct at the unique (and subjective) calibration resolution. Scaling analysis and modeling techniques were applied to MODIS TERRA Bands 1 through 7 and to the standard derived vegetation and soil moisture indices in order to quantitatively characterize the wide range of scaling of these fields. The scaling exponents we found are not so large; however, they act across wide scale ranges and imply large effects. For example, for the statistics near the mean, the MODIS (500‐m) resolution would be biased by a factor of ∼1.52 when compared with similar results from an “ideal” sensor at 1‐mm resolution. Applying the standard index algorithms on lower and lower resolution satellite data, we obtained indices with significantly different statistical properties than if the same algorithm was used at the finest resolution and then degraded to an intermediate value (a difference of a factor ∼1.54). This shows that the algorithms can, at best, be accurate at the unique calibration scale and this points to the need to develop resolution‐independent algorithms based on the scaling exponents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".