MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767050796 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2017.1394181

Can Polarimetric Radarsat-2 Images Provide a Solution to Quantify Non-Photosynthetic Vegetation Biomass in Semiarid Mixed Grassland?

2017· article· en· W2767050796 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zhaoqin Li, Xulin Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLeaf area indexCanopyBiomass (ecology)Growing seasonGrasslandRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)Atmospheric sciencesSoil scienceAgronomyHydrology (agriculture)BotanyGeographyPhysicsBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV) biomass using optical remote sensing in semiarid mixed grassland is challenging. This is due to the combined effects of photosynthetic vegetation, biological soil crust, and bare soil on the canopy spectra. Radarsat-2 provides a new way to quantify NPV biomass. This study investigated the potential of fine quad-pol Radarsat-2 images for quantifying NPV biomass and total aboveground biomass in semiarid mixed grasslands. The parameters used were Radar Vegetation Index, co-polarization ratio (HH/VV), cross-polarization ratios (VH/HH and VH/VV), de-polarization ratio, the Cloude and Pottier decomposition component (Entropy and Alpha angle) and the Freeman-Durden decomposition components (volume, surface, and multiple scattering). The best NPV and total aboveground biomass estimations are achieved with an r2 of 0.70 and 0.51 and relative root mean square error (rRMSE) of 9% and 8.4%, respectively, using the VH/VV cross-polarization ratio of the FQ23 (41.9°–43.3°) image in the middle growing season. The r2 values are 0.65 and 0.70 and the rRMSE are 12.6% and 8.4%, respectively, for NPV and total biomass estimation using the depolarization ratio of the FQ3 (20.9°–22.9°) image in the peak growing season.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207