MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2548437618 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2016.7730860

Hyperspectral chlorophyll indices sensitivity analysis to soil backgrounds in agrirultural aplications using field, Probe-1 and Hyperion data

2016· article· en· W2548437618 on OpenAlexaff
A. Bannari, K. Staenz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersArabian Gulf University
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceSatelliteSoil waterSoil scienceGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the evaluation and comparison of the sensitivity of several chlorophyll indices to bare soils optical property variations. To achieve our goal, field spectroradiometric measurements were used as well as hyperspectral data acquired with the Probe-1 airborne and Hyperion EO-1 satellite sensors. The field-based reflectance measurements were acquired above 90 bare soil plots with various optical properties and selected from different agricultural lands. Probe-1 and Hyperion data were spectrally and radiometrically calibrated as well as atmospherically corrected. After these pre-processing steps, sixty spectra of different bare soils with various optical properties were extracted from each dataset for use in the analysis. The obtained results show an excellent agreement between the accuracies estimated from field, airborne and satellite data. Independently from the data source and from the bare soil background, CARI, MCARI and TCARI indices are basically not sensitive to changes in soil optical properties with an RMSE less than 1% and will permit a better estimation of chlorophyll content in sparse crop cover environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→