MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1762299 · doi:10.1038/ki.1991.299

Using Color-infrared Photography and GIS to Quantify Cattail Coverage in Wetlands

2003· article· en· W1762299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Jeffrey Homan, Linda B. Penry, George M. Linz

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingWetlandTyphaAerial photographyPhotographyEnvironmental scienceScale (ratio)High resolutionGeographyCartographyEcologyBiologyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing changes in habitat features at very large scales with GIS requires digital images with both high spatial and spectral resolutions. As part of an experiment to reduce blackbird (Icterinae) damage to sunflower in North Dakota, we used large-scale infrared photography to monitor regrowth of herbicide-treated cattail (Typha spp.) in wetlands used by roosting blackbirds. We aerially photographed the wetlands at 460-610 m above ground level. All photographs were taken vertically through a 38-cm diameter port in the floor of the plane's fuselage. We used a SLR 35-mm camera loaded with Kodak Ektachrome® Professional Infrared EIR film. The photographs were shot through a 24-mm lens; a Wratten #12 filter and haze filter were attached to the lens to counteract blue light effects and improve clarity. The ground cell resolution was ~ 1 m for the photographic images. To reduce distortion and shadowing of the ground features, photographs were taken nearly perpendicular to the wetlands on cloudless days from 1100 to 1400 h CT. Film speed was set manually at EI 100, the recommended speed for the AR-5 developing process used for infrared accuracy. Shutter speed and aperture settings were 1/500 sec and F-5.6, respectively. The developed images were scanned at 2,100 pixels/inch with a Polaroid® Sprint Scan 35 Plus. The scans were converted to Tagged Image Format files. File size was ~16MB. We used ArcView® 3.2a software with the Image Analysis extension to categorize pixels into four habitat features through a supervised classification. Annual changes in proportions of living cattail, dead cattail, open water, and floating vegetation were tracked from 1999- 2002. A pixel-based coordinate system was used to coregister raster images of wetlands across years. Changes in the proportions of categorized features were tracked through time by summarizing pixel counts between coregistered rasters. We suggest this approach of data acquisition and analysis when monitoring habitat changes at very large spatial scales.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney InternationalSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207