MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2894345164 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12675

Multi-Angle Spectroscopic Remote Sensing of Arctic Vegetation Biochemical and Biophysical Properties

2018· dissertation· en· W2894345164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Blair E. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)Leaf area indexEnvironmental scienceTundraCanopyScale (ratio)NadirArcticGeographyEcologyCartographySatellitePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating the spatial distribution of foliar pigments and canopy structural components with remote sensing can serve as an important approach for monitoring plant community characteristics, as spatially explicit measurements of vegetation biochemical and biophysical variables can provide insight into ecosystem composition, processes, and/or disturbance caused by changing environmental conditions. Vegetation monitoring efforts in Arctic regions have been mostly accomplished with nadir-looking broadband instruments, thus leaving multi-angle, spectroscopic retrievals of vegetation biochemical and biophysical variables largely unexplored. Using field and spaceborne (CHRIS/PROBA) multi-angle spectroscopy, the performance of various modelling techniques was compared for retrieving biochemical and biophysical variables from tundra vegetation situated across a bioclimatic gradient in the Western Canadian Arctic. Specifically, empirically-based multi-band and predefined narrowband vegetation indices (VIs), a machine learning regression algorithm (Gaussian processes regression, GPR), and a physically-based radiative transfer model (PROSAIL) were compared for their capability of retrieving leaf chlorophyll content (LCC), plant area index (PAI), and canopy chlorophyll content (CCC) from multi-angle, multi-scale, high-resolution canopy reflectance data. Reference data for these variables were acquired through laboratory and field-scale leaf and canopy measurements. Iterative empirical models were the most effective for retrieving LCC, PAI, and CCC irrespective of view angle and spatial scale (p<0.05). GPR produced the best correlation-based modelling results (cross validated r2cv=0.59), however, a multi-band vegetation index (i.e. simple ratio, SR) was shown to provide statistically comparable results while providing a more simplistic methodological approach (r2cv=0.55). Furthermore, SR produced statistically superior (p<0.05) normalized prediction accuracies over GPR (NRMSE=0.13 vs. NRMSE=0.16). Empirically modelled band selections showed that variable covariation is an important consideration when constructing reflectance models used for vegetation variable retrievals in the Arctic, and thus it was concluded that spectroscopic remote sensing provides benefits for such tasks. The overall conclusion drawn from the compiled empirical and physical modelling results, when examined across the field and remote sensing scales, was that a multi-angle approach does not provide a statistically significant advantage over a nadir approach for retrieving LCC, PAI, or CCC in Arctic environments (p>0.05).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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