MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085195125 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2013.2240691

An Approach to Constructing a Homogeneous Time Series of Soil Moisture Using SMOS

2013· article· en· W2085195125 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Delphine Leroux, Yann H. Kerr, Eric F. Wood, Alok K. Sahoo, Rajat Bindlish, Thomas J. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityJet Propulsion LaboratoryU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWater contentRadiometerEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingSatelliteSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesMoistureSoil scienceMeteorologyMathematicsStatisticsGeologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overlapping soil moisture time series derived from two satellite microwave radiometers (the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System) are used to generate a soil moisture time series from 2003 to 2010. Two statistical methodologies for generating long homogeneous time series of soil moisture are considered. Generated soil moisture time series using only morning satellite overpasses are compared to ground measurements from four watersheds in the U.S. with different climatologies. The two methods, cumulative density function (CDF) matching and copulas, are based on the same statistical theory, but the first makes the assumption that the two data sets are ordered the same way, which is not needed by the second. Both methods are calibrated in 2010, and the calibrated parameters are applied to the soil moisture data from 2003 to 2009. Results from these two methods compare well with ground measurements. However, CDF matching improves the correlation, whereas copulas improve the root-mean-square error.

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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207