MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136885625 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2021.3067890

Estimating Soil Moisture Over Winter Wheat Fields During Growing Season Using Machine-Learning Methods

2021· article· en· W3136885625 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesCanadian Space AgencyState Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing ScienceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSupport vector machineRandom forestMean squared errorMachine learningSynthetic aperture radarGradient boostingArtificial intelligenceGrowing seasonMathematicsFeature selectionLinear regressionMoistureRemote sensingComputer scienceStatisticsMeteorologyAgronomyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil moisture is vital for the crop growth and directly affects the crop yield. The conventional synthetic aperture radar (SAR) based soil moisture monitoring is often influenced by vegetation cover and surface roughness. The machine-learning methods are not constrained by physical parameters and have high nonlinear fitting capabilities. In this study, machine-learning methods were applied to estimate soil moisture over winter wheat fields during its growing season. RADARSAT-2 data with quad polarizations and 240 sample plots in the study area were acquired and collected, respectively. In addition to the four linear polarization channels, polarimetric decomposition parameters were extracted to expand the SAR feature space. Three advanced machine-learning models were selected and compared, which were support vector regression, random forests (RF), and gradient boosting regression tree. To improve the performances of the models, three feature-selection methods were compared, which were based on Pearson correlation, support vector machine recursive feature elimination, and RF, respectively. The coefficient of determination ( <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">R</i> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were used to compare and assess the performances of those models. The results revealed that polarimetric decomposition parameters were effective in estimating soil moisture, and RF model obtained the highest prediction accuracy (training set: RMSE = 2.44 vol.% and <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">R</i> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> = 0.94; and validation set: RMSE = 4.03 vol.%, and <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">R</i> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> = 0.79). This study finally concluded that using polarimetric decomposition parameters combined with machine-learning and feature-selection methods could effectively estimate soil moisture at a high accuracy, which helps monitor soil moisture across the agricultural field during its growing season.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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