Combination of Optical and SAR Sensors for Monitoring Biomass Over Corn Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a cross-calibration approach was applied to combine RADARSAT-2 and RapidEye sensors for biomass monitoring over corn fields. First, RapidEye and RADARSAT-2 sensors were compared in terms of biomass estimation. Then the estimated biomass from RADARSAT-2 was cross-calibrated with respect to the biomass estimated from RapidEye. Combination of the optical and cross-calibrated Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) derived biomass was proposed to have higher temporal resolution biomass maps. Vegetation indices including normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), red-edge triangular vegetation index (RTVI), simple ratio (SR) and red-edge simple ratio (SRre) were used for modeling of biomass estimation from RapidEye. Water Cloud Model (WCM) was also used for biomass estimation from RADARSAT-2. Data collected during SMAP Validation Experiment 2012 (SMAPVEX12) field campaign was used for validation. The results demonstrate that the accuracies of biomass estimations from RapidEye and RADARSAT-2 are close. For RapidEye, the highest accuracies derived from RTVI index with correlation coefficient (R) of 0.92 and Root Mean Square of (RMSE) of 118.18 gr/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> . The R values derived from RADARSAT-2 is 0.83 and its RMSE is 171.93 gr/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> . After cross-calibration of the biomass derived from RADARSAT-2 versus those derived from RapidEye, the RMSE of estimates dropped by 18.86 gr/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".