MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979933551 · doi:10.1111/grs.12262

A new temporal prediction method of grazing pressure based on normalized difference vegetation index and precipitation using nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous input networks

2019· article· en· W2979933551 on OpenAlex
Taosuo Wu, Feng Feng, Qian Lin, Hongmei Bai

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGrassland Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersQingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology
KeywordsNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexGrazingGrazing pressureEnvironmental scienceAutoregressive modelVegetation (pathology)AridRangelandGrasslandEnhanced vegetation indexOvergrazingPrecipitationStatisticsMathematicsMeteorologyEcologyLeaf area indexVegetation IndexAgroforestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Restoration of natural vegetation in arid and semi‐arid grasslands is facing severe challenges. The vegetation is easy to lose their vitality, resulting in the loss of the cover in natural grasslands under the high grazing pressure. To address this situation, this paper proposes a novel method for accurately predicting the grazing pressure using the nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous input (NARX) network based on the remote sensing data of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and precipitation. The proposed method uses the NARX networks to predict the temporal variations of the NDVI with respect to the precipitation. The grazing pressure can be thus calculated using the predicted values of the NDVI. For practical application, this study investigated an arid and semi‐arid grassland with heavy grazing pressure in Hulunbuir, China. The results demonstrate that the proposed method can provide an accurate prediction of the grazing pressure (mean absolute error 0.103, root‐mean‐square error 0.122, mean absolute percentage error 8.36% and coefficient of determination 0.899 at the confidence interval of 95%). In addition, the predicted values of the grazing pressure in the study area during the years from 2016 to 2020 can be obtained using the proposed method. The proposed method can obtain a good prediction of the grazing pressure, which can be further used as a guidance for the rangeland managers to reduce the occurrence of the overgrazing.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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