MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905204117 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n1p21

Using SAR Data to Detect Wheat Irrigation Supply in an Irrigated Semi-arid Area

2018· article· en· W2905204117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tarik Benabdelouahab, Dominique Derauw, Hayat Lionboui, Rachid Hadria, Bernard Tychon, Abdelghani Boudhar, Riad Balaghi, Youssef Lebrini, Hamid Maaroufi, Christian Barbier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsIrrigationEnvironmental scienceSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingAridAnthesisCroppingHydrology (agriculture)AgronomyGeographyAgricultureGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to use SAR (sensitivity of Synthetic Aperture Radar) data to detect the supply of irrigation water during the anthesis and grain-filling phenological stages of wheat in the irrigated Tadla perimeter of Morocco. Backscattering coefficients were derived from four ERS-1 (European Remote-Sensing Satellite-1) images acquired between 31 March and 12 April 2011 and were compared with the irrigation water invoices database. The analysis showed that there were significant changes in backscattering values caused by irrigation, with average values ranging between 0.11 and 3.11 dB. A reference level of 0.52 dB was established for differentiating between (recently; up to 4 days) irrigated and non-irrigated plots. We also set an interval of 5 days for the acquisition of SAR images in order to ensure continuous monitoring of the irrigated wheat plots over time. The study showed that radar data contain important information for the assessment of irrigation supplies during the cropping season, which could help regional decision-support systems to monitor and control irrigation supplies over large areas.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207