MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2117663180 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2003.1294362

Estimate of net primary production of aquatic vegetation of the amazon floodplain using SAR satellite data

2004· article· en· W2117663180 on OpenAlexaff
Maycira Costa, O. Niemann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmazon rainforestVegetation (pathology)FloodplainEnvironmental scienceSynthetic aperture radarBiomass (ecology)Primary productionHydrology (agriculture)Remote sensingAquatic ecosystemAquatic plantEcosystemForestryGeographyEcologyGeologyCartographyOceanographyMacrophyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), Brazil Abstract-Field measurements were combined with synthetic aperture radar images to evaluate the use of RADARSAT and JERS-1 for estimating biomass changes and mapping of aquatic vegetation, and subsequently estimating of net primary productivity of aquatic vegetation in the lower Amazon. The combination of C and L bands provides the best correlation (r =0.82) and an intermediate saturation point (620 gm -2 ) for estimating above water biomass of aquatic vegetation. A combination of RADARSAT and JERS-1 images from each water period was classified using a region growing algorithm, and yielded an accuracy higher than 95% for the seasonal vegetated areas of the floodplain. The combination of the seasonal mapped area of aquatic vegetation with the statistical SAR-algorithm for estimating above water biomass and the percentage of below water biomass yielded a total annual NPP of 1.9x10 12 g C yr -1 (±28%) for aquatic vegetation.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→