MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149670139 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2003.821697

Reducing the Dimensionality of Plant Spectral Databases

2004· article· en· W2149670139 on OpenAlexaff
Ian E. Bell, Gladimir V. G. Baranoski

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersJoint Research Centre
KeywordsRemote sensingPrincipal component analysisTransmittanceComputer scienceReflectivityCurse of dimensionalitySpectral bandsVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceDatabaseBiological systemArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceOpticsOptoelectronicsPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground-based measurements of plant reflectance and transmittance are essential for remote sensing projects oriented toward agriculture, forestry, and ecology. This paper examines the application of principal components analysis (PCA) in the storage and reconstruction of such plant spectral data. A novel piecewise PCA approach (PPCA), which takes into account the biological factors that affect the interaction of solar radiation with plants, is also proposed. These techniques are compared through experiments involving the reconstruction of reflectance and transmittance curves for herbaceous and woody specimens. The spectral data used in these experiments were obtained from the Leaf Optical Properties Experiment (LOPEX) database. The reconstructions were performed aiming at a root-mean-square error lower than 1%. The results of these experiments indicate that PCA can effectively reduce the dimensionality of plant spectral databases from the visible to the infrared regions of the light spectrum, and that the PPCA approach can further maximize the accuracy/cost ratio of the storage and reconstruction of plant spectral reflectance and transmittance 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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