MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956053481 · doi:10.1029/2019gl083015

Using Satellite‐Based Vegetation Cover as Indicator of Groundwater Storage in Natural Vegetation Areas

2019· article· en· W2956053481 on OpenAlexaff
Soumendra N. Bhanja, Pragnaditya Malakar, Abhijit Mukherjee, Matthew Rodell, Pabitra Mitra, Sudeshna Sarkar

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Water tableHydrology (agriculture)Enhanced vegetation indexRemote sensingTable (database)Soil scienceGeologyVegetation IndexClimate changeComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is widely used as an efficient indicator of vegetation cover. Here we assess the possibility of using NDVI as an indicator of groundwater storage. We used groundwater level (GWL) obtained from in situ groundwater observation wells ( n > 15,000) in India in 2005–2013. Good correlation ( r > 0.6) is observed between NDVI and GWL in natural vegetation‐covered areas, that is, forest lands, shrubs, and grasslands. We apply artificial neural network and support vector machine approaches to investigate the relationship between GWL and NDVI using both of the parameters as input. Artificial neural network‐ and support vector machine‐simulated GWL matches very well with observed GWL, particularly in naturally vegetated areas. Thus, we interpret that NDVI may be used as a suitable indicator of groundwater storage conditions in certain areas where the water table is shallow and the vegetation is natural and where in situ groundwater observations are not available.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0000.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

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

Citations57
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207