MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080849056 · doi:10.1080/01431160512331326567

Usefulness and limits of MODIS GPP for estimating wheat yield

2005· article· en· W2080849056 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew C. Reeves, Maosheng Zhao, S. W. Running

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster UniversityU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsYield (engineering)Moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerEnvironmental scienceProductivityClimatologyPhysical geographyStatisticsMathematicsGeographySatelliteGeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gross primary productivity (GPP) estimates derived from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) are converted to wheat yield and compared with observed yield for counties, climate districts and entire states for the 2001 and 2002 growing seasons in Montana and North Dakota. Analyses revealed that progressive levels of spatial aggregation generally improved the relations between estimated and observed wheat yield. However, only state level yield estimates were sufficiently accurate (⩽ 5% deviation from observed yield). The statewide yield results were encouraging because they were derived without the use of retrospective empirical analyses, which constitutes a new opportunity for timely wheat yield estimates for large regions. Additionally, this study identifies six practical limits to estimating wheat yield using MODIS GPP. As a result we describe three suggestions for improving wheat yield estimates for scientists willing to re‐compute MODIS‐derived GPP estimates using regionally specific inputs.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations112
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207