MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090999729 · doi:10.3390/rs12182926

Evaluation of FORMOSAT-2 and PlanetScope Imagery for Aboveground Oil Palm Biomass Estimation in a Mature Plantation in the Congo Basin

2020· article· en· W3090999729 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Migolet, Kalifa Goı̈ta

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCanopyBiomass (ecology)Principal component analysisMean squared errorForestryRemote sensingMathematicsBotanyGeologyGeographyStatisticsBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study developed methods using remote sensing for estimation of total dry aboveground biomass (AGB) of oil palm in the Congo Basin. To achieve this, stem diameters at breast height (DBH, 1.3 m) and stem heights were measured in an oil palm plantation located in Gabon (Congo Basin, Central Africa). These measurements were used to determine AGB in situ. The remote sensing approach that was used to estimate AGB was textural ordination (FOTO) based upon Fourier transforms that were applied, respectively, to PlanetScope and FORMOSAT-2 satellite images taken from the area. The FOTO method is based on the combined use of two-dimensional (2D) Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). In the context of the present study, it was used to characterize the variation in canopy structure and to estimate the aboveground biomass of mature oil palms. Two types of equations linking FOTO indices to in situ biomass were developed: multiple linear regressions (MLR); and multivariate adaptive spline regressions (MARS). All best models developed yielded significant results, regardless of whether they were derived from PlanetScope or from FORMOSAT-2 images. Coefficients of determination (R2) varied between 0.80 and 0.92 (p ≤ 0.0005); and relative root mean-square-errors (%RMSE) were less than 10.12% in all cases. The best model was obtained using MARS approach with FOTO indices from FORMOSAT-2 (%RMSE = 6.09%).

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)0.002
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207