MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985894533 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2019.8898418

Soil Moisture Estimation From Smap Observations Using Long Short- Term Memory (LSTM)

2019· article· en· W2985894533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ali Ben Abbes, Ramata Magagi, Kalifa Goı̈ta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong short term memoryWater contentModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerEnvironmental scienceArtificial neural networkTerm (time)Brightness temperatureVegetation (pathology)MoistureEstimationComputer scienceSoil scienceRemote sensingRecurrent neural networkArtificial intelligenceMeteorologyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil Moisture (SM) estimation is of growing interest. In the recent years, different Machine Learning (ML) methods were developed in order to better understand the spatio-temporal variability of SM. Among the different ML methods, neural networks were the most used for SM estimation. The purpose of this paper is to propose a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) based methodology to estimate the SM. The input data used in the LSTM model include the Soil Moisture Active and Passive mission (SMAP) Brightness Temperature (TB), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Vegetation Water Content (MODIS-VWC) and the soil temperature. The target SM data used to train the LSTM model is provided by the Real-time In situ Soil Monitoring for Agriculture (RISMA) network installed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). LSTM shows good ability to estimate the SM values with good accuracy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207