MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060398476 · doi:10.1029/2005gl024127

Potential of MODIS EVI and surface temperature for directly estimating per‐pixel ecosystem C fluxes

2005· article· en· W2060398476 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. F. Rahman, D. A. Sims, V. D. Cordova

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManitoba Medical Service FoundationTexas Tech UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEddy covarianceEnhanced vegetation indexPrimary productionEnvironmental scienceEcosystem respirationVegetation (pathology)Atmospheric sciencesFlux (metallurgy)EcosystemRemote sensingCarbon fluxRange (aeronautics)Leaf area indexVegetation IndexNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the potential of estimating per‐pixel gross primary production (GPP) directly from the MODIS enhanced vegetation index (EVI) and respiration directly from MODIS surface temperature (MOD11). Carbon flux data were obtained from 10 eddy covariance tower sites representing a wide range of North American vegetations. The correlation between across‐site tower GPP and EVI was comparable (r = 0.77) to that between tower GPP and MOD17‐GPP (r = 0.73), suggesting that EVI could be used to provide reasonably accurate direct estimates of GPP on a truly per‐pixel basis. There was also a strong relationship (r2 = 0.67) between respiration and surface temperature of dense vegetation, suggesting that estimation of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) may be possible with relatively simple pixel based models, at least for some vegetation types.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations231
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207