MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167029631 · doi:10.1080/0143116031000115247

Relationships between Radarsat SAR data and surface moisture content of agricultural organic soils

2003· article· en· W2167029631 on OpenAlexaffabout
Renaud Mathieu, Mathali Sbih, Alain A. Viau, François Anctil, Léon E. Parent, J.B. Boisvert

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCentre de Géomatique du QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterWater contentEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Soil scienceMoistureBackscatter (email)Hydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A time series of 10 C-band fine beam images were acquired over the West Monteregie region (Quebec) in 1999 to examine the potential of Radarsat to detect surface moisture content of cultivated organic soils. Soil moisture data were simultaneously collected from 10 fields cropped to carrots, potatoes, lettuces, and onions. The analysis was conducted at two levels: (i) a temporal scale (daily average value); and (ii) a spatial scale (10 fields). At the first level, we found that the average radar backscatter ) was quite well correlated to the seasonal change of the average moisture content (R 2=0.75), although the dates with a strong vegetation growth decreased the relationship. Comparison with data acquired for mineral soils indicates that organic soils exhibit a lower backscatter, especially at lower moisture content levels, suggesting that soil types should be considered prior to map soil moisture changes. At the field scale, the relationship was much lower (R 2=0.44). The quality of the relationship was proportional to vegetation cover and appeared to be crop-dependent. Best results were obtained with onions and carrots. Considering only bare organic soils, the result was satisfactory (R 2=0.79) and similar to those published on mineral soils.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207