MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105776252 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2004.1368526

A modified empirical model for soil moisture estimation in vegetated areas using SAR data

2004· article· en· W2105776252 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Sikdar, Iain Cumming

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingEmpirical modellingWater contentBackscatter (email)Inversion (geology)Vegetation (pathology)Correlation coefficientSynthetic aperture radarSoil scienceMoistureMeteorologyGeologyComputer scienceGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringGeographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the major models developed for soil moisture retrieval, the empirical model developed by Dubois et al. in 1995 proves to be a good choice, because of its accuracy and simplicity of implementation. The model provides quite good results for the estimation in bare soil areas. However, it does not explicitly incorporate vegetation backscatter effects and does not provide good results for vegetated areas with a cross-polarization ratio greater than -11dB. A modified empirical model is developed to address this concern. The water-cloud model is used to introduce vegetation effects into the VV backscatter coefficient, which is further used in the inversion model. The modified model is applied to the Washita 1994 SIR-C data and a correlation of 0.81 is obtained between the ground based measurements and the soil moisture estimated from radar data

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207