MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canola Phenology Mapping Using Optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar (Sar) in Canada

2024· article· en· W4402260276 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hansanee Fernando, Kwabena Abrefa Nketia, Thuan Ha, Sarah van Steenbergen, Heather McNairn, Steven J. Shirtliffe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingCanolaInverse synthetic aperture radarRadar imagingSide looking airborne radarPhenologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceRadarMeteorologyBistatic radarGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plethora of studies have empirically demonstrated and linked canola heat stress susceptibility to substantial yield losses. Such biophysical phenomenon underscores the importance of timely and accurate monitoring of crop phenological events. Optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data, to meet such a requirement, have aided in developing diverse yet complementary information for crop monitoring. In this study, we investigate 47 satellite-based Land Surface Parameters (LSPs) from Sentinel-1 and -2 imagery to monitor canola phenology across arable lands in Saskatchewan, Canada. Daily ground reference phenological data were collected using trail-cameras installed across 28 canola fields. We constructed daily time-series profiles for each LSP by coupling a cubic interpolation algorithm with a Savitzky-Golay filtering. LSPs were correlated with ground reference data to investigate temporal trends and sensitivity of specific patterns to phenological events. Preliminary results indicate that SAR-based LSPs were most sensitive to canola bolting and pod maturity, while flowering and associated stages are mapped efficiently through optical indices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207