MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106245975 · doi:10.5589/m03-004

Investigating the use of Landsat thematic mapper data for estimation of forest leaf area index in southern Sweden

2003· article· en· W2106245975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lars Eklundh, Karin Hall, Helena Eriksson, Jonas Ardö, Petter Pilesjö

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic MapperDeciduousLeaf area indexEnhanced vegetation indexVegetation (pathology)GeographyRemote sensingThematic mapMultispectral ScannerNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographySatellite imageryVegetation IndexEcologyCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aims at investigating the use of Landsat thematic mapper (TM) for mapping leaf area index (LAI) in coniferous and deciduous forests in southern Sweden. LAI has been estimated in the field with optical measurements, allometric equations, and litter-trap data, and empirical relationships between LAI estimates and satellite-measured reflectances have been analysed. Several common vegetation indices and multiple regressions where estimated LAI is predicted as a function of various spectral bands are tested. The results indicate significant relationships between Landsat TM reflectances and parameters related to LAI, and the relationships are improved when separating coniferous and deciduous stands. The best relationships occur between Landsat TM data and the product of effective LAI as estimated with the LAI-2000 instrument and a needle clumping factor (L G ), which explains about 80% of the variation in coniferous stands and about 50% of the variation in deciduous stands. The best single bands in coniferous stands are the middle-infrared bands (TM5 and TM7), and the best vegetation index is the moisture stress index (TM5/TM4). The best single band in deciduous stands is TM4, and the best vegetation index is the simple ratio (SR).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations67
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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