MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155680036 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2006.519

The Future of Imaging Spectroscopy Prospective Technologies and Applications

2006· preprint· en· W2155680036 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael E. Schaepman, R. Green, Stephen Ungar, Brian Curtiss, Antonio Plaza, Bo Gao, Susan L. Ustin, Raymond F. Kokaly, Norman Miller, Stéphane Jacquemoud, Eyal Ben Dor, R. N. Clark, Curtiss O. Davis, Jeff Dozier, D.G. Goodenough, Dar A. Roberts, Gregg A. Swayze, E.J. Milton, A. F. H. Goetz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaYork University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaJet Propulsion Laboratory
KeywordsFocus (optics)Cardinal pointEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceSpectroscopyEmerging technologiesPrime (order theory)Imaging spectroscopyRemote sensingScalabilitySystems engineeringData scienceNanotechnologyEngineeringMaterials scienceHyperspectral imagingArtificial intelligenceGeologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spectroscopy has existed for more than three centuries now. Nonetheless, significant scientific advances have been achieved. We discuss the history of spectroscopy in relation to emerging technologies and applications. Advanced focal plane arrays, optical design, and intelligent on-board logic are prime prospective technologies. Scalable approaches in pre-processing of imaging spectrometer data will receive additional focus. Finally, we focus on new applications monitoring transitional ecological zones, where human impact and disturbance have highest impact as well as in monitoring changes in our natural resources and environment. We conclude that imaging spectroscopy enables mapping of biophysical and biochemical variables of the Earth's surface and atmospheric composition with unprecedented accuracy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207