MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034252022 · doi:10.3390/land9060193

Tropical PeatLand Forest Biomass Estimation Using Polarimetric Parameters Extracted from RadarSAT-2 Images

2020· article· en· W3034252022 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mirza Muhammad Waqar, Rahmi Sukmawati, Yaqi Ji, Josaphat Sri Sumantyo

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsPolarimetryRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)ScatteringCanopyLeaf area indexBackscatter (email)GeographyGeologyPhysicsAgronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper was aimed at estimating the forest aboveground biomass (AGB) in the Central Kalimantan tropical peatland forest, Indonesia, using polarimetric parameters extracted from RadarSAT-2 images. Six consecutive acquisitions of RadarSAT-2 full polarimetric data were acquired and polarimetric parameters were extracted. The backscattering coefficient ( σ o ) for HH, HV, VH, and VV channels was computed respectively. Entropy (H) and alpha ( α ) were computed using eign decomposition. In order to understand the scattering behavior, Yamaguchi decomposition was performed to estimate surface scattering ( γ s u r f ) and volume scattering ( γ v o l ) components. Similarly following polarimetric indices were computed; Biomass Index (BMI), Canopy Structure Index (CSI), Volume Scattering Index (VSI), Radar Vegetation Index (RVI) and Pedestal Height ( p h ). The PolSAR parameters were evaluated in terms of their temporal consistency, inter-dependence, and suitability for forest aboveground biomass estimation across rainy and dry conditions. Regression analysis was performed between referenced biomass measurements and polarimetric parameters; VSI, H, RVI, p h , and γ v o l were found significantly correlated with AGB. Biomass estimation was carried out using significant models. Resultant models were validated using field-based AGB measurements. Validation results show a significant correlation between measured and referenced biomass measurements with temporal consistency over the acquisition time period.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.239
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 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207