Spatial variability of mean daily estimates of actual evaporation from remotely sensed imagery and surface reference data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Land surface evaporation has considerable spatial variability that is not captured by point scale estimates calculated from meteorological data alone. Knowing how evaporation varies spatially remains an important issue for improving parameterisations of land surface schemes and hydrological models, and various land management practices. Satellite-based and aerial remote sensing has been crucial for capturing moderate to larger scale surface variables to indirectly estimate evaporative fluxes. However, more recent advances for field research via unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) now allows for the acquisition of more highly detailed surface data. Integrating models that can estimate actual evaporation from higher resolution imagery and surface reference data would be valuable to better examine potential impacts of local variations in evaporation on upscaled estimates. This study introduces a novel approach for computing a normalised index from surface variables that can be used to obtain more realistic distributed estimates of actual evaporation. For demonstration purposes the Granger and Gray evaporation model (G–D) was applied at a complex parkland site in central Saskatchewan, Canada. Visible and thermal images and meteorological reference data required to parameterise the model was obtained at midday. Normalised indexes (simple ratios) were computed at midday for albedo and net radiation. This allowed for single measured values albedo and mean daily net radiation to be scaled across high resolution images over a large study region. Albedo and net radiation estimates were within 5–10 % of measured values. An evaporation estimate for a grassed surface was 0.5 mm larger than eddy covariance measurements. The methods applied have two key advantages for estimating evaporation over previous remote sensing approaches, 1. Detailed daily estimates of actual evaporation were directly obtained using a physically-based evaporation model, and 2. Analysis of more detailed and reliable evaporation estimates may lead to improved methods for upscaling evaporative fluxes to larger scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".