MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2054383254 · doi:10.1117/12.734359

Modeling spaceborne lidar returns from vegetation canopies

2007· article· en· W2054383254 on OpenAlexaff
Baoxin Hu, Iouri Tcherniavski, Alexander E. Dudelzak, Alexander Koujelev

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceSatelliteEvapotranspirationCarbon cycleAtmospheric modelMeteorologyGeologyGeographyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural and biophysical parameters of vegetation canopies, such as tree heights, biomass, vertical and horizontal heterogeneity are important factors affecting flows of energy, water, carbon and trace gases through terrestrial systems. Knowing such parameters is required to model processes associated with photosynthesis, energy transfer, and evapotranspiration at local and global scales. Monitoring vegetation canopies has long been one of the main tasks of several proposed and launched space missions. Lidar instruments have demonstrated the best potential to provide estimates of vegetation height, cover, and canopy vertical structural profiles. A spaceborne lidar would deliver such data on global scale producing the total land biomass value with the accuracy demanded by carbon-cycle and global-change modelers. This paper presents the preliminary results of a numerical model simulating signal returns of a spaceborne lidar for the assessment of land-vegetation canopy biomass. It is a part of work with the overall purpose to develop a trade-off analysis tool for a spaceborne lidar system as a payload of a land-vegetation observation space mission. An end-to-end propagation of a spaceborne lidar sensing pulse through vegetation canopies is considered by the model. It consists of the modules characterizing the laser and the receiver optical systems, satellite's orbit, atmosphere, vegetation canopies, optical filtering, and detectors. This tool can be used to evaluate the effects of instrument configurations on the retrieval of vegetation structures, and to carry out trade-off studies in the instrument design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→