The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat ETM+ detection capabilities for burn severity
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Project for Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity
Eidenshink, J., Schwind, B., Brewer, K., Zhu, Z.-L., Quayle, B., & Howard, S. (2007) · Fire Ecology · doi:10.4996/fireecology.0301003 · Cited by 1,423
Current research issues related to post-wildfire runoff and erosion processes
Moody, J. A., Shakesby, R. A., Robichaud, P. R., Cannon, S. H., & Martin, D. A. (2013) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.03.004 · Cited by 693
A New Metric for Quantifying Burn Severity: The Relativized Burn Ratio
Parks, S., Dillon, G., & Miller, C. (2014) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs6031827 · Cited by 448
Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires
Finney, M. A., McHugh, C. W., & Grenfell, I. C. (2005) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/x05-090 · Cited by 230
Cansler, C. A., & McKenzie, D. (2012) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs4020456 · Cited by 165
Metadata
- Authors
- van Wagtendonk, J. W., Root, R. R., & Key, C. H.
- Venue
- Remote Sensing of Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 397-408
- ISSN
- 0034-4257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149650508
- Cited by
- 458
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat ETM+ detection capabilities for burn severity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rse.2003.12.015
- The paper
- van Wagtendonk, J. W., Root, R. R., & Key, C. H. (2004). Comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat ETM+ detection capabilities for burn severity. Remote Sensing of Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2003.12.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
