MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024227873 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2020.2992609

Characterization of MSS Channel Reflectance and Derived Spectral Indices for Building Consistent Landsat 1–5 Data Record

2020· article· en· W3024227873 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Chen, Qiancong Fan, Shenlong Lou, Limin Yang, Chenxing Wang, Martin Claverie, Cheng Wang, José Marcato, Wesley Nunes Gonçalves, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation
KeywordsThematic MapperRemote sensingMultispectral ScannerChannel (broadcasting)Vegetation (pathology)Multispectral imageReflectivitySpectral bandsMultispectral pattern recognitionEnvironmental scienceSatellite imageryGeologyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Landsat 1-5 multispectral scanner system (MSS) collected records of land surface mainly during 1972-1992. Investigations on MSS have been relatively limited compared with the numerous investigations on its successors, such as Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced TM Plus (ETM+). The benefits of the Landsat program are not fully accomplished without the inclusion of MSS archives. Investigations on the Landsat 1-5 MSS channel reflectance characteristics wereperformed followed by derived vegetation spectral indices and the Tasseled Cap (TC) transformed features mainly using a collection of synthesized records. On average, the Landsat 4 MSS is generally comparable to the Landsat 5 MSS. The Landsat 1-3 MSSs show disagreement in channel reflectance compared with the Landsat 5 MSS, especially for the red channel (600-700 nm) and the near-infrared channel (700-800 nm). Meanwhile, the relative differences for vegetation spectral indices of the Landsat 3 MSS are mainly from -16% to -5% with the median about -11.5%, while those of the Landsat 2 MSS are mainly from -15% to -7%. Cross-validation tests and two case applications suggested that between-sensor consistency was improved generally through the transformation models generated by ordinary least-squares regression. To improve the consistency of the vegetation indices and the TC greenness, direct strategy employing respective transformation models was more effective than calculations based on the transformed channel reflectance. Considering the shortages of the Landsat MSS archives, further efforts are needed to improve its comparability with observations by other successive Landsat sensors.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207