MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213450608 · doi:10.3390/rs14051089

Using Ensemble-Based Systems with Near-Infrared Hyperspectral Data to Estimate Seasonal Snowpack Density

2022· article· en· W4213450608 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Karim El Oufir, Karem Chokmani, Anas El Alem, Monique Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowHyperspectral imagingEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating the seasonal density of the snowpack has many financial and environmental benefits. Rapid assessment and daily monitoring of its evolution are therefore key to effective prevention. Traditionally, the physical characteristics of snow are measured directly in the field, which involves high costs and personnel mobilization. Hyperspectral imaging is a reliable and efficient technique to study and evaluate this physical property. The spectral reflectance of snow is partly defined by changes in its physical properties, particularly in the Near infrared (NIR) part of the spectrum. Recently, a hybrid snow density estimation model allowing retrieval of density from NIR hyperspectral data was developed, based on an a priori classification of snow samples. However, in order to obtain optimal density estimates with the Hybrid model (HM), the sources of classification and estimation error must be controlled. Following the same principle as the HM, an Ensemble-based system (EBS) was developed. This model reduces the number of misclassification errors produced by the HM. The general concept of EBS algorithms is based on the principle that obtaining more opinions before making a decision is part of human nature, especially when economic and environmental benefits are at stake. This approach has helped to reduce the risk of classification and estimation errors and to develop more robust density results. One hundred and fourteen snow samples collected during three winters (2018–2020) were used to calibrate and validate the EBS. The performance of the EBS was validated using an independent database and the results were satisfactory (R2 = 0.90, RMSE = 44.45 kg m−3, BIAS = 3.87 kg m−3 and NASH = 0.89).

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207