MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288535089 · doi:10.1002/2016jg003322

Retrieval of seasonal dynamics of forest understory reflectance from semiarid to boreal forests using MODIS BRDF data

2016· article· en· W2288535089 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Písek, Jing M. Chen, Hideki Kobayashi, Miina Rautiainen, Michael E. Schaepman, Arnon Karnieli, Michael Sprinstin, Youngryel Ryu, Maris Nikopensius, Kairi Raabe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyAcademy of FinlandEesti Teadusfondi
KeywordsUnderstoryBidirectional reflectance distribution functionNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerTaigaAlbedo (alchemy)BorealVegetation (pathology)Leaf area indexReflectivitySatelliteGeographyEcologyCanopyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spatial and temporal patterns of forest background (understory) reflectance are crucial for retrieving biophysical parameters of forest canopies (overstory) and subsequently for ecosystem modeling. In this communication, we retrieved seasonal courses of understory normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from multiangular Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer bidirectional reflectance distribution function (MODIS BRDF)/albedo data. We compared satellite‐based seasonal courses of understory NDVI to understory NDVI values measured in different types of forests distributed along a wide latitudinal gradient (65.12°N–31.35°N). Our results indicated that the retrieval method performs well particularly over open forests of different types. We also demonstrated the limitations of the method for closed canopies, where the understory signal retrieval is much attenuated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research BiogeosciencesSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207