MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003844688 · doi:10.1029/2001jd900110

Mapping Canadian boreal forest vegetation using pigment and water absorption features derived from the AVIRIS sensor

2001· article· en· W2003844688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Fuentes, John A. Gamon, Hong‐lie Qiu, D. A. Sims, Dar A. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceTaigaDeciduousRemote sensingVegetation classificationBorealImaging spectrometerEnhanced vegetation indexNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexGeologyLeaf area indexSpectrometerForestryEcologyGeographyVegetation IndexPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using imagery of the Canadian boreal forest, we explored the ability of the Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to map vegetation type by taking advantage of pigment and water absorption features. Two techniques were exploited. In the first classification routine, laboratory‐acquired leaf spectra representing different “pigment classes” were used in a spectral unmixing procedure to map the relative abundance of pigments in the landscape. The resulting images were then used in a maximum likelihood routine to map the distribution of vegetation cover types. Accuracies for this method range between 66.6–80.1%, when compared to a vegetation map prepared by the Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM), Forestry Branch Inventory Unit (FBIU). In the second approach, seven indices of vegetation structure and physiological function were calculated from AVIRIS. Cover types were then derived using the index images as inputs in a maximum likelihood classification. Levels of accuracy for this method were between 56.6 and 73.3%, when compared to the same vegetation map. Both of these complementary techniques were able to differentiate important vegetation types such as fen, deciduous trees, and wet and dry conifers at accuracies superior to other well‐established classification methods for this area. This improved vegetation classification can now be used to evaluate regional surface‐atmosphere fluxes of carbon and water vapor.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations70
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207