A Meta-Analysis of Remote Sensing Technologies and Methodologies for Crop Characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change and population growth risk the world’s food supply. Annual crop yield production is one of the most crucial components of the global food supply. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has stressed global food security, production, and supply chains. Using biomass estimation as a reliable yield indicator, space-based monitoring of crops can assist in mitigating these stresses by providing reliable product information. Research has been conducted to estimate crop biophysical parameters by destructive and non-destructive approaches. In particular, researchers have investigated the potential of various analytical methods to determine a range of crop parameters using remote sensing data and methods. To this end, they have investigated diverse sources of Earth observations, including radar and optical images with various spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions. This paper reviews and analyzes publications from the past 30 years to identify trends in crop monitoring research using remote sensing data and tools. This analysis is accomplished through a systematic review of 277 papers and documents the methods, challenges, and opportunities frequently cited in the scientific literature. The results revealed that research in this field had increased dramatically over this study period. In addition, the analyses confirmed that the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) had been the most studied vegetation index to estimate crop parameters. Moreover, this analysis showed that wheat and corn were the most studied crops, globally.
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 | 0.034 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".