Comparative analysis of SPOT, Landsat, MODIS, and AVHRR normalized difference vegetation index data on the estimation of leaf area index in a mixed grassland ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many grassland studies have depended on or are currently depending on the Landsat series of satellite sensors for monitoring work. However, given the identified gaps in Landsat data, alternatives to Landsat imagery need to be tested in an operational environment. In this study, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values are derived from a Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT), Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) image and compared to the NDVI values from a Landsat image for LAI estimation in a semi-arid heterogeneous grassland. Results indicate a high agreement between Landsat and SPOT data with R2 over 85% at all buffer levels (100, 250, and 1000 m), and a significant but lower agreement between MODIS and Landsat with R2 around 28% at 250 m buffer level to 37% at 100 m buffer level. Based on in situ measurements of LAI in 22 homogeneous sites, the relationships established between LAI and NDVI show that SPOT and Landsat could predict LAI with acceptable accuracy, but MODIS and AVHRR cannot quantify the spatial variation in LAI measurements. Data fusion or blending techniques that combine the spectral information of high spatial/low temporal resolution data with low spatial/high temporal resolution data may be considered to study semi-arid heterogeneous grasslands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".