MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901138371 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2018.8518998

Combination of Optical and SAR Sensors for Monitoring Biomass Over Corn Fields

2018· article· en· W2901138371 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Hosseini, Heather McNairn, Scott Mitchell, Andrew Davidson, Laura Dingle Robertson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCarleton University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Remote sensingMean squared errorNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceSynthetic aperture radarCalibrationCoefficient of determinationBackscatter (email)MathematicsLeaf area indexStatisticsAgronomyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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/m2. The R values derived from RADARSAT-2 is 0.83 and its RMSE is 171.93 gr/m2. After cross-calibration of the biomass derived from RADARSAT-2 versus those derived from RapidEye, the RMSE of estimates dropped by 18.86 gr/m2.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207