MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981545378 · doi:10.4095/219853

Validation of a Hyperspectral Curve-Fitting Technique for Mapping Crop Water Status

2001· report· en· W2981545378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Champagne, A. Bannari, K. Staenz, Heather McNairn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingCropMathematicsRemote sensingComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of plant water status is an essential component of precision crop management, and is directly related to plant physiological processes and ultimately crop yield. Hyperspectral models developed to estimate plant water content have met with limited success and have not been rigorously validated. A spectrum matching technique was applied to the hyperspectral data to directly calculate the canopy equivalent water thickness (EWT) using a look-up table approach. The objective of this study was to test the validity of this algorithm using crop water status information collected on the ground. Data were acquired over an experimental test site near Indian Head, Saskatchewan using the Probe-1 airborne hyperspectral sensor. Plant biomass samples were collected simultaneously from 96 plots spanning eight fields of various crop types (wheat, canola, and peas). The model was validated against EWT estimated from biomass samples as well as more conventional measures of crop water status. Results indicate that the liquid water retrieval technique can be used to estimate crop water status for broad-leafed crops such as peas and canola, but is not a reliable estimator of wheat this early stage of vegetative growth. This may be related to the low level of water in the crop and the contribution of soil to the reflectance signal.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207