MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011362350 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2020.100857

Integration of synthetic aperture radar and optical satellite data for corn biomass estimation

2020· article· en· W3011362350 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Hosseini, Heather McNairn, Scott Mitchell, Laura Dingle Robertson, Andrew Davidson, Saeid Homayouni

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCarleton University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceSynthetic aperture radarContext (archaeology)Biomass (ecology)SatelliteRadarComputer scienceMeteorologyGeographyEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts to use satellites to monitor the condition and productivity of crops, although extensive, can be challenging to operationalize at field scales in part due to low frequency revisit of higher resolution space-based sensors, in the context of an actively growing crop canopy. The presence of clouds and cloud shadows further impedes the exploitation of high resolution optical sensors for operational monitoring of crop development. The objective of this research was to present an option to facilitate greater temporal observing opportunities to monitor the accumulation of corn biomass, by integrating biomass products from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and optical satellite sensors. To accomplish this integration, a transfer function was developed using a Neural Network algorithm to relate estimated corn biomass from SAR to that estimated from optical data. With this approach, end users can exploit biomass products to monitor corn development, regardless of the source of satellite data.•The Water Cloud Model (WCM) was calibrated or parametrized for horizontal transmit and horizontal received (HH) and horizontal transmit and vertical received (HV) C-band SAR backscatter using a least square algorithm.•Biomass and volumetric soil moisture were estimated from dual-polarized RADARSAT-2 images without any ancillary input data.•A feed forward backpropagation Neural Network algorithm was trained as a transfer function between the biomass estimates from RADARSAT-2 and the biomass estimates from RapidEye.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207