MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910339756 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2018.1526064

Evaluation of Vegetation Responses to Climatic Factors and Global Vegetation Trends using GLASS LAI from 1982 to 2010

2018· article· en· W2910339756 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xijia Li, Ying Qu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)PrecipitationEnvironmental scienceDeciduousNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexEnhanced vegetation indexPhysical geographyClimatologyLatitudeShrublandLeaf area indexClimate changeAtmospheric sciencesVegetation IndexGeographyEcosystemEcologyMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vegetation growth has been profoundly affected by global climate change. It is important to investigate vegetation responses to climatic factors and vegetation trends with remote sensing data. In this study, we explored the responses of global vegetation to 3 climatic factors (temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation) and global vegetation trends based on the Global Land Surface Satellite (GLASS) Leaf Area Index (LAI) dataset from 1982 to 2010. The main findings are: (i) the vegetation responses to temperature and precipitation have no apparent time-lag and the vegetation response to the solar radiation has a time-lag of 1 month in most places in the northern hemisphere; (ii) the driving factor of the growth of vegetation was air temperature, followed by precipitation and solar radiation; (iii) the closest relationships between vegetation and climatic factors were observed in mixed forest, deciduous needleleaf forest, and shrublands at northern mid- and high-latitude; (iv) a map of global vegetation trends from 1982 to 2010 was derived, and showed that the proportion of vegetated pixels with significant increasing and decreasing trends was 34.73% and 6.59% (p < 0.05), respectively; (v) more reasonable vegetation trends can be obtained from the GLASS LAI dataset in the perennial cloud-covered regions.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207