MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942962169 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2019.2910558

Comparing the Performance of Multispectral and Hyperspectral Images for Estimating Vegetation Properties

2019· article· en· W2942962169 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingMultispectral imageRemote sensingMean squared errorVegetation (pathology)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceMultispectral pattern recognitionEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multispectral and hyperspectral data have been used to investigate various land cover characteristics. Hyperspectral data have more potential to retrieve information of ground features than multispectral data; however, their limited availability leads to fewer studies in the literature. This research aims to acquire both multispectral and hyperspectral images and compare their performance for estimating vegetation properties (i.e., chlorophyll content). A hyperspectral image (with 325 bands in the visible near infrared (NIR) range) was obtained using a compact hyperspectral sensor mounted on a manned helicopter. A modified camera-based three-band image (with blue, green, and NIR) and a RedEdge sensor-based five-band image (with blue, green, red, red edge, and NIR) were simulated using the hyperspectral image. These three images were compared for the estimation of vegetation chlorophyll content. Partial least square (PLS) regression and random forest regression (RFR) were both applied to estimate chlorophyll using image-derived variables, including vegetation indices and imagery textures. Results show that the RedEdge image achieved good accuracy (R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ~ 0.80, RMSE ~ 14 μg/cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ), close to the accuracy of using the hyperspectral image (R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ~ 0.81, RMSE ~ 13 μg/cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ). The extra bands in the hyperspectral image did not substantially improve chlorophyll estimation. The three-band multispectral image yielded the lowest accuracy (e.g., R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ~ 0.42, RMSE ~ 24 μg/cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ). The RFR performed consistently better than the PLS, owing to its use of randomly-selected training data and predictor variables to build regression trees. These results are expected to provide insights into future studies on the selection of remote sensing images for different monitoring needs.

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.192 · 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