MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625129035 · doi:10.1002/2017rg000562

Validation practices for satellite‐based Earth observation data across communities

2017· article· en· W2625129035 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Loew, William Bell, Luca Brocca, Claire E. Bulgin, Jörg Burdanowitz, Xavier Calbet, Reik V. Donner, Darren Ghent, Alexander Gruber, Thomas Kaminski, Julian Kinzel, Christian Klepp, Jean‐Christopher Lambert, Gabriela Schaepman‐Strub, Marc Schröder, Tijl Verhoelst

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Geophysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsInversa Systems (Canada)
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsTerminologyComputer scienceSatelliteEarth observationVariety (cybernetics)Task (project management)Remote sensingEarth observation satelliteData miningData scienceSystems engineeringArtificial intelligenceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assessing the inherent uncertainties in satellite data products is a challenging task. Different technical approaches have been developed in the Earth Observation (EO) communities to address the validation problem which results in a large variety of methods as well as terminology. This paper reviews state‐of‐the‐art methods of satellite validation and documents their similarities and differences. First, the overall validation objectives and terminologies are specified, followed by a generic mathematical formulation of the validation problem. Metrics currently used as well as more advanced EO validation approaches are introduced thereafter. An outlook on the applicability and requirements of current EO validation approaches and targets is given.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.360
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.059 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations243
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of GeophysicsSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207