Assessment of moisture content in sandy beach environments from multispectral satellite imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework for estimating moisture content from satellite-based multispectral imagery of sandy beaches was tested under various site conditions and sensors. It utilizes the reflectance of dry soil and an empirical factor c relating reflectance and moisture content for a specific sediment. Here, c was derived two ways: first, from in situ measurements of moisture content and average NIR image reflectance; and second, from laboratory-based measurements of moisture content and spectrometer reflectance. The proposed method was tested at four sandy beaches: Duck, North Carolina; and Cannon Beach, Ocean Cape, and Point Carrew, Yakutat, Alaska. Both measured and estimated moisture content profiles were impacted by site geomorphology. For profiles with uniform slopes, moisture contents ranged from 3.0% to 8.0% (zone 1) and from 8.0% to 23.0% (zone 2). Compared to field measurements, the moisture contents estimated using c calibrated from in situ and laboratory data resulted in percent error of 3.6%–44.7% and 2.7%–58.6%, respectively. The highest percent error occurred at the transition from zone 1 to zone 2. Generally, moisture contents were overestimated in zone 1 and underestimated in zone 2, but followed the expected trends based on field measurements. When estimated moisture contents in zone 1 exceeded 10%, surface roughness, debris, geomorphology, and weather conditions were considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".