MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061292865 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117755

Fusion of MODIS and Landsat-8 Surface Temperature Images: A New Approach

2015· article· en· W2061292865 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled Hazaymeh, Quazi K. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Heat Island Mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYarmouk UniversityU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerRemote sensingMean squared errorSpectroradiometerImage fusionImage resolutionEnvironmental scienceAridFusionReflectivityGeologySatelliteImage (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, our objective was to develop a spatio-temporal image fusion model (STI-FM) for enhancing temporal resolution of Landsat-8 land surface temperature (LST) images by fusing LST images acquired by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS); and implement the developed algorithm over a heterogeneous semi-arid study area in Jordan, Middle East. The STI-FM technique consisted of two major components: (i) establishing a linear relationship between two consecutive MODIS 8-day composite LST images acquired at time 1 and time 2; and (ii) utilizing the above mentioned relationship as a function of a Landsat-8 LST image acquired at time 1 in order to predict a synthetic Landsat-8 LST image at time 2. It revealed that strong linear relationships (i.e., r2, slopes, and intercepts were in the range 0.93-0.94, 0.94-0.99; and 2.97-20.07) existed between the two consecutive MODIS LST images. We evaluated the synthetic LST images qualitatively and found high visual agreements with the actual Landsat-8 LST images. In addition, we conducted quantitative evaluations of these synthetic images; and found strong agreements with the actual Landsat-8 LST images. For example, r2, root mean square error (RMSE), and absolute average difference (AAD)-values were in the ranges 084-0.90, 0.061-0.080, and 0.003-0.004, respectively.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.158 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations55
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicUrban Heat Island MitigationFrench-language works237,207