MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982869726 · doi:10.1029/2019gl084832

From Canopy‐Leaving to Total Canopy Far‐Red Fluorescence Emission for Remote Sensing of Photosynthesis: First Results From TROPOMI

2019· article· en· W2982869726 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaoying Zhang, Jing M. Chen, Luis Guanter, Liming He, Yongguang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCanopyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental sciencePrimary productionRemote sensingChlorophyll fluorescenceSatelliteAtmosphere (unit)MeteorologyPhysicsFluorescenceGeologyBotanyOpticsEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Solar‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) from the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI), which has substantially improved spatial and temporal resolutions, will improve the global estimations of gross primary production (GPP) than previous satellite SIF data. However, the canopy‐leaving SIF observed by sensors (SIF obs ) represents only a portion of the total canopy SIF emission (SIF total ). This portion is sensitive to the canopy structure and observation direction, resulting in uncertainties in GPP estimations using SIF obs . Here we used the spectral invariant theory to derive global soil‐resistant SIF total (SIF total‐SR ) from TROPOMI SIF obs and evaluated the SIF total‐SR performance in estimating GPP. We found that the clear differences in SIF obs between needleleaf forest and crops diminished for SIF total‐SR . SIF total‐SR increased the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) by 0.09 and 0.11 against the flux tower instantaneous and daily GPP, respectively. This derived SIF total‐SR can be used to develop more robust GPP models and better constrain carbon cycle models.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations112
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207