MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023946652 · doi:10.3390/rs12091455

Evaluation of Satellite-Derived Surface Soil Moisture Products over Agricultural Regions of Canada

2020· article· en· W3023946652 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Muhammad Yaasiin Oozeer, Christopher G. Fletcher, Catherine Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater contentSatelliteRemote sensingGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil moisture is a critical indicator for climate change and agricultural drought, but its measurement is challenging due to large variability with land cover, soil type, time, space and depth. Satellite estimates of soil moisture are highly desirable and have become more widely available over the past decade. This study investigates and compares the performance of four surface soil moisture satellite datasets over Canada, namely, Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity Level 3 (SMOS L3), versions 3.3 and 4.2 of European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI) soil moisture product and a recent product called SMOS-INRA-CESBIO (SMOS-IC) that contains corrections designed to reduce several known sources of uncertainty in SMOS L3. These datasets were evaluated against in situ networks located in mostly agricultural regions of Canada for the period 2012 to 2014. Two statistical comparison methods were used, namely, metrics for mean soil moisture and median of metrics. The results suggest that, while both methods show similar comparisons for regional networks, over large networks, the median of metrics method is more representative of the overall correlation and variability and is therefore a more appropriate method for evaluating the performance of satellite products. Overall, the SMOS products have higher daily temporal correlations, but larger biases, against in situ soil moisture than the ESA CCI products, with SMOS-IC having higher correlations and smaller variability than SMOS L3. The SMOS products capture daily wetting and drying events better than the ESA CCI products, with the SMOS products capturing at least 75% of observed drying as compared to 55% for the ESA CCI products. Overall, for periods during which there are sufficient observations, both SMOS products are more suitable for agricultural applications over Canada than the ESA CCI products, even though SMOS-IC is able to capture soil moisture variability more accurately than SMOS L3.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207