MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Soil Moisture Retrieval over Crop Region using Time-Series High-Resolution RCM Data

2023· article· en· W4387803725 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Zhou, Jinfei Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceMean squared errorWater contentBackscatter (email)Surface roughnessSoil scienceCanopyImage resolutionComputer scienceMathematicsGeologyMaterials scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic aperture radar (SAR), as an active microwave sensor, has proven to be effective in retrieving soil moisture (SM) over the past few decades. However, accurately estimating SM over agricultural regions is challenging due to the complex interactions between SM, soil roughness, and vegetation, resulting in mixed backscattering signals. The change detection (CD) method eliminates the influence of soil roughness by employing the ratio of two consecutive SAR images. However, the volume scattering caused by the crop canopy still affects SM estimation. To mitigate this limitation, we propose an advanced change detection method for SM retrieval using the random volume over ground (RVoG) decomposition on time-series compact-polarization SAR data. Experimental results using high-resolution time-series RCM in corn and soybean fields show promising performance, with root-mean-square-error (RMSE) values of 10.34 Vol.% and 7.41 Vol.% for RCH and RCV polarization in the corn field and 6.47 Vol.% and 5.03 Vol.% in the soybean field, respectively. The proposed method outperforms the original CD method, highlighting its potential as a reliable alternative for consistent SM retrieval from the RCM.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207