MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315396283 · doi:10.1061/41036(342)442

Automated Selection of Anchor Pixels for Landsat Based Evapotranspiration Estimation

2009· article· en· W2315396283 on OpenAlexaff
Jeppe Kjaersgaard, Richard G. Allen, María Cruz García-González, William J. Kramber, Ricardo Trezza

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2009 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationSensible heatPixelMetric (unit)Water cycleLatent heatComputer scienceRemote sensingResidualEnvironmental scienceFlux (metallurgy)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmMeteorologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When managing local and regional water resources, the estimation of evapotranspiration is important and has generally been one of the components of the hydrological cycle that has the greatest uncertainty. With the development of suitable models and algorithms applied to high resolution (30 m) satellite imagery, evapotranspiration may be estimated with greater accuracy, and in a cost effective and time efficient manner. The METRIC image processing procedure calculates net radiation, soil heat flux and sensible heat flux through a number of steps before estimating evapotranspiration as the residual from the energy balance. Sensible heat flux is calibrated using the so-called "cold" and "hot" anchor pixels. These pixels are selected by the user, which may introduce some operator dependency or human errors on the estimation of sensible heat flux and subsequently error in the final map of evapotranspiration. A procedure for automated selection of the anchor pixels is presented. The automated pixel selection procedure will reduce the user dependency of the estimations of sensible heat flux. Additionally, it may allow more novice users to obtain good results when applying METRIC.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2009Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207