MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795681605 · doi:10.3390/geosciences8040127

Estimating Regional Scale Hydroclimatic Risk Conditions from the Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) Satellite

2018· article· en· W2795681605 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Champagne, Yinsuo Zhang, Patrick Cherneski, Trevor Hadwen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater contentSatelliteMoistureDrynessClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite soil moisture is a critical variable for identifying susceptibility to hydroclimatic risks such as drought, dryness, and excess moisture. Satellite soil moisture data from the Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) mission was used to evaluate the sensitivity to hydroclimatic risk events in Canada. The SMAP soil moisture data sets in general capture relative moisture trends with the best estimates from the passive-only derived soil moisture and little difference between the data at different spatial resolutions. In general, SMAP data sets overestimated the magnitude of moisture at the wet extremes of wetting events. A soil moisture difference from average (SMDA) was calculated from SMAP and historical Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) data showed a relatively good delineation of hydroclimatic risk events, although caution must be taken due to the large variability in the data within risk categories. Satellite soil moisture data sets are more sensitive to short term water shortages than longer term water deficits. This was not improved by adding “memory” to satellite soil moisture indices to improve the sensitivity of the data to drought, and there is a large variability in satellite soil moisture values with the same drought severity rating.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207