MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053647769 · doi:10.3390/rs70404565

Potential of Space-Borne Hyperspectral Data for Biomass Quantification in an Arid Environment: Advantages and Limitations

2015· article· en· W2053647769 on OpenAlexaff
Harald Zandler, Alexander Brenning, Cyrus Samimi

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersVolkswagen FoundationU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)AridSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spite of considerable efforts to monitor global vegetation, biomass quantification in drylands is still a major challenge due to low spectral resolution and considerable background effects. Hence, this study examines the potential of the space-borne hyperspectral Hyperion sensor compared to the multispectral Landsat OLI sensor in predicting dwarf shrub biomass in an arid region characterized by challenging conditions for satellite-based analysis: The Eastern Pamirs of Tajikistan. We calculated vegetation indices for all available wavelengths of both sensors, correlated these indices with field-mapped biomass while considering the multiple comparison problem, and assessed the predictive performance of single-variable linear models constructed with data from each of the sensors. Results showed an increased performance of the hyperspectral sensor and the particular suitability of indices capturing the short-wave infrared spectral region in dwarf shrub biomass prediction. Performance was considerably poorer in the area with less vegetation cover. Furthermore, spatial transferability of vegetation indices was not feasible in this region, underlining the importance of repeated model building. This study indicates that upcoming space-borne hyperspectral sensors increase the performance of biomass prediction in the world’s arid environments.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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