MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2364516510

[New index for crop canopy fresh biomass estimation].

2010· article· en· W2364516510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chen Pf, T Nicolas, Philippe, WJ Huang, BG Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyBiomass (ecology)Hyperspectral imagingEnvironmental scienceSpectroradiometerEnhanced vegetation indexVegetation (pathology)Remote sensingVegetation IndexCoefficient of determinationLeaf area indexMean squared errorAgronomyMathematicsReflectivityNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexStatisticsEcologyGeographyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present study is to propose a new vegetation index for corn canopy fresh biomass estimation, which improves the ability to accurately estimate high biomass levels by remote sensing technology. For this purpose, hyperspectral reflectance data of corn canopies were collected using a ground-based spectroradiometer during different field campaigns in a region of Quebec (Canada), from 2004 to 2008. Corresponding fresh biomass values were obtained by destructive measurements, and a hyperspectral image was also acquired using the Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI) in 2005. A new biomass index named red-edge triangular vegetation index (RTVI) was designed and compared to existing indices used for fresh biomass estimation. The results showed that RTVI was the best vegetation index for predicting canopy fresh biomass, with sustained sensitivity at high fresh biomass levels. The best regression model between RTVI and canopy fresh biomass was the power fit, with determination coefficient (R2) of 0.96. With the validation by CASI imagery in 2005, good results were obtained. The relationship between CASI predicted biomass and actual biomass was 0.58 (R2), with the RMSE of 0.44 kg x m(-2).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations78
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207