Forest Monitoring Using Landsat Time Series Data: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unique among Earth observation programs, the Landsat program has provided continuous earth observation data for the past 41 years. Landsat data are systematically collected and archived following a global acquisition strategy. The provision of free, robust data products since 2008 has spurred a renaissance of interest in Landsat and resulted in an increasingly widespread use of Landsat time series (LTS) for multitemporal characterizations. The science and applications capacity has developed steadily since 1972, with the increase in sophistication offered over time incorporated into Landsat processing and analysis practices. With the successful launch of Landsat-8, the continuity of measures at scales of particular relevance to management and scientific activities is ensured in the short term. In particular, forest monitoring benefits from LTS, whereby a baseline of conditions can be interrogated for both abrupt and gradual changes and attributed to different drivers. Such benefits are enabled by data availability, analysis-ready image products, increased computing power and storage, as well as sophisticated image processing approaches. In this review, we present the status of remote sensing of forests and forest dynamics using LTS, including issues related to the sensors, data availability, data preprocessing, variables used in LTS, analysis approaches, and validation issues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".