Remote sensing of agricultural drought monitoring: A state of art review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural drought is a natural hazard that can be characterized by shortage of water supply. In the scope of this paper, we synthesized the importance of agricultural drought and methods commonly employed to monitor agricultural drought conditions. These include: (i) <em>in-situ</em> based methods, (ii) optical remote sensing methods, (iii) thermal remote sensing methods, (iv) microwave remote sensing methods, (v) combined remote sensing methods, and (vi) synergy between in-situ and remote sensing based methods. The in-situ indices can provide accurate results at the point of measurements; however, unable to provide spatial dynamics over large area. This can potentially be addressed by using remote sensing based methods because remote sensing platforms have the ability to view large area at a near continuous fashion. The remote sensing derived agricultural drought related indicators primarily depend on the characteristics of reflected/emitted energy from the earth surface, thus the results can be relatively less accurate in comparison to the in-situ derived outcomes. Despite a significant amount of research and development has been accomplished in particular to the area of remote sensing of agricultural drought, still there are several challenges. Those include: monitoring relatively small area, filling gaps in the data, developing consistent historical dataset, developing remote sensing-based agricultural drought forecasting system, integrating the recently launched and upcoming remote sensors, and developing standard validation schema, among others.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".