MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145505387 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2002.1010891

Four-scale linear model for anisotropic reflectance (FLAIR) for plant canopies. II. validation and inversion with CASI POLDER, and PARABOLA data at BOREAS

2002· article· en· W2145505387 on OpenAlexaff
H. Peter White, John R. Miller, J.M. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBidirectional reflectance distribution functionRemote sensingInversion (geology)CanopyScale (ratio)Fluid-attenuated inversion recoveryRadiometryReflectivityComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyOpticsPhysicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For pt.I see ibid., vol.39, no.5, p.1072-83 (2001). To address the need for a flexible model of the bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) that is also suitable for inversion, the FLAIR Model (Four-Scale Linear Model for AnIsotropic Reflectance) has been developed H. P. White et al. (2001). Based on the more detailed Four-Scale Model J. M. Chen et al. (1997), FLAIR is a linear kernel-like model, developed with the aim of not being limited to specific canopy characteristics or view/illumination geometry, while maintaining a direct relationship between canopy architectural properties and model coefficients. Having been previously demonstrated to have the ability to capture the bi-directional patterns in both forward and inverse modes of calculation, this paper examines the FLAIR model in describing the boreal canopy by applying FLAIR to multiangular data sets obtained by various sensors during BOREAS 1994. Effects of sensor field of view, ranges of view/solar illumination geometry, and multiple sensor use on BRDF derivation and inversion for canopy parameter retrieval are considered.

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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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