MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145273322 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2007.897427

An Investigation on Sieve and Detour Effects Affecting the Interaction of Collimated and Diffuse Infrared Radiation (750 to 2500 nm) With Plant Leaves

2007· article· en· W2145273322 on OpenAlexaff
Gladimir V. G. Baranoski, Denise Eng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfraredCollimated lightBiological systemRemote sensingAttenuationRadiationEnvironmental scienceOpticsMaterials sciencePhysicsLaserGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The retrieval of plant biophysical and biochemical properties from high spectral resolution data represents an active area of research within the remote sensing field. Scientific studies in this area are usually supported by computational simulations of light attenuation processes within foliar tissues. In heterogeneous organic materials, like plant leaves, sieve and detour effects can affect these processes and ultimately change the light gradients within these tissues and their spectral signatures. Although these effects have been extensively examined for applications involving the interactions of visible radiation with plant leaves, little is known about their role in the infrared domain. In this paper, we describe the procedural basis for their incorporation in the modeling of infrared-radiation transport (in the range of 750-2500 nm) within plant leaves. We also assess their impact on the predictability of simulation solutions relating the directionality of the incident radiation and the internal arrangement of the tissues to changes on foliar spectral signatures in this domain. Our investigation is grounded by the observations involving the modeled results and quantitative and qualitative data reported in the literature.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations52
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207