MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2954813948 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n11p93

Aboveground Biomass Estimates of Araucaria angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze, Using Vegetation Indexes in Wolrdview-2 Image

2019· article· en· W2954813948 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luiz Carlos Basso, Vagner Alex Pesck, M. Roik, Afonso Figueiredo Filho, Thiago Floriani Stepka, Gerson dos Santos Lisboa, Ismael Konkol, André Felipe Hess, Ana Paula Carneiro Brandalize

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexAraucariaBiomass (ecology)Vegetation (pathology)MathematicsCoefficient of determinationEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceRemote sensingForestryEcologyStatisticsGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research aims to evaluate the biomass estimates of Araucaria angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze trees obtained by the direct method, then present results generated from a 2.0 m resolution spectral image Worldview-2 satellite. The quantification of the biomass in the field was first carried out of 29 trees of the specie of interest with DBH ≥ 40 cm and then with the image aid the crowns were delimited for analysis. From the spectral bands (B2-blue, B3-green, B4-yellow, B5-red, B6-near red, B7-near infrared 2 and B8-near infrared 2), it was possible to obtain vegetation indexes proposed by the literature (NDVI, NDVI_2, RS and SAVI_0,25) and later incorporated with dendrometric data a correlation matrix was formed. Additionally, mathematical equations were used to estimate biomass and carbon as a function of dendrometric variables and information obtained from the satellite image processing. From these equations, the ones that presented better results were those that contained independent dendrometric variables (DBH) and those that contained vegetation indices (NDVI_2 and NDVI). For the dendrometers, the relative error found was 14.42% and 14.32% for biomass and carbon respectively, while for the digital ones, NDVI_2 found a relative error of 37.82% and an adjusted coefficient of determination of 0.88 in the biomass equations. In the carbon equations, the NDVI variable presented the best results, being 38.56% the relative error and 0.87 the determination coefficient.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Science→Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→