MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W791978432 · doi:10.5589/m12-043

Using RADARSAT-2 polarimetric and ENVISAT-ASAR dual-polarization data for estimating soil moisture over agricultural fields.

2014· article· en· W791978432 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mélanie Trudel, François Charbonneau, Robert Leconte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Resources CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSurface roughnessRemote sensingPolarimetryWater contentSurface finishGeographyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceMathematicsScatteringPhysicsGeologyOpticsGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are several challenges in estimating soil moisture from radar remote sensing over agricultural fields in eastern Canada. To begin, snow cover or frozen ground is observed from November to April. From April to May, agricultural activities (e.g., ploughing and sowing) change the surface roughness from week to week thereby limiting the applicability of multitemporal and multi-incidence angle approaches. Techniques using a priori information on surface roughness are difficult to apply since the type of crop often changes from year to year. Here, we present an approach using effective roughness parameters (i.e., effective root mean square height and effective correlation length) that are obtained using an empirical relationship (independent of the crop type) between the root mean square height and the correlation length. The effective parameters allow us to resolve the Integral Equation Model for observed incidence angle and backscattering coefficient in HH and VV polarizations (σ°HH and σ°VV) using a lo...

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 score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations99
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207