Employing Measures of Heterogeneity and an Object-Based Approach to Extrapolate Tree Species Distribution Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information derived from high spatial resolution remotely sensed data is critical for the effective management of forested ecosystems. However, high spatial resolution data-sets are typically costly to acquire and process and usually provide limited geographic coverage. In contrast, moderate spatial resolution remotely sensed data, while not able to provide the spectral or spatial detail required for certain types of products and applications, offer inexpensive, comprehensive landscape-level coverage. This study assessed using an object-based approach to extrapolate detailed tree species heterogeneity beyond the extent of hyperspectral/LiDAR flightlines to the broader area covered by a Landsat scene. Using image segments, regression trees established ecologically decipherable relationships between tree species heterogeneity and the spectral properties of Landsat segments. The spectral properties of Landsat bands 4 (i.e., NIR: 0.76–0.90 µm), 5 (i.e., SWIR: 1.55–1.75 µm) and 7 (SWIR: 2.08–2.35 µm) were consistently selected as predictor variables, explaining approximately 50% of variance in richness and diversity. Results have important ramifications for ongoing management initiatives in the study area and are applicable to wide range of applications.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".