MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023039192 · doi:10.3390/rs6010815

Burned Area Mapping in the North American Boreal Forest Using Terra-MODIS LTDR (2001–2011): A Comparison with the MCD45A1, MCD64A1 and BA GEOLAND-2 Products

2014· article· en· W2023039192 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José A. Moreno-Ruíz, José Rafael García Lázaro, Isabel María Del Águila Cano, Pedro B. C. Leal

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBorealRemote sensingModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerBrightness temperatureTaigaRadiometerMeteorologyBrightnessGeographyForestrySatellitePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An algorithm based on a Bayesian network classifier was adapted to produce 10-day burned area (BA) maps from the Long Term Data Record Version 3 (LTDR) at a spatial resolution of 0.05° (~5 km) for the North American boreal region from 2001 to 2011. The modified algorithm used the Brightness Temperature channel from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) band 31 T31 (11.03 μm) instead of the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) band T3 (3.75 μm). The accuracy of the BA-LTDR, the Collection 5.1 MODIS Burned Area (MCD45A1), the MODIS Collection 5.1 Direct Broadcast Monthly Burned Area (MCD64A1) and the Burned Area GEOLAND-2 (BA GEOLAND-2) products was assessed using reference data from the Alaska Fire Service (AFS) and the Canadian Forest Service National Fire Database (CFSNFD). The linear regression analysis of the burned area percentages of the MCD64A1 product using 40 km × 40 km grids versus the reference data for the years from 2001 to 2011 showed an agreement of R2 = 0.84 and a slope = 0.76, while the BA-LTDR showed an agreement of R2 = 0.75 and a slope = 0.69. These results represent an improvement over the MCD45A1 product, which showed an agreement of R2 = 0.67 and a slope = 0.42. The MCD64A1, BA-LTDR and MCD45A1 products underestimated the total burned area in the study region, whereas the BA GEOLAND-2 product overestimated it by approximately five-fold, with an agreement of R2 = 0.05. Despite MCD64A1 showing the best overall results, the BA-LTDR product proved to be an alternative for mapping burned areas in the North American boreal forest region compared with the other global BA products, even those with higher spatial/spectral resolution.

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 score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207