MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971086847 · doi:10.3390/w11091789

Advanced Method to Capture the Time-Lag Effects between Annual NDVI and Precipitation Variation Using RNN in the Arid and Semi-Arid Grasslands

2019· article· en· W2971086847 on OpenAlexaff
Taosuo Wu, Feng Feng, Qian Lin, Hongmei Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexAridPrecipitationLagEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)ClimatologyPhysical geographyClimate changeGeographyMeteorologyEcologyGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The latest research indicates that there are time-lag effects between the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the precipitation variation. It is well known that the time-lags are different from region to region, and there are time-lags for the NDVI itself correlated to the precipitation. In the arid and semi-arid grasslands, the annual NDVI has proved not only to be highly dependent on the precipitation of the concurrent year and previous years, but also the NDVI of previous years. This paper proposes a method using recurrent neural network (RNN) to capture both time-lags of the NDVI with respect to the NDVI itself, and of the NDVI with respect to precipitation. To quantitatively capture these time-lags, 16 years of the NDVI and precipitation data are used to construct the prediction model of the NDVI with respect to precipitation. This study focuses on the arid and semi-arid Hulunbuir grasslands dominated by perennials in northeast China. Using RNN, the time-lag effects are captured at a 1 year time-lag of precipitation and a 2 year time-lag of the NDVI. The successful capture of the time-lag effects provides significant value for the accurate prediction of vegetation variation for arid and semi-arid grasslands.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207