MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030483518 · doi:10.3390/rs3050975

Remote Sensing of Shallow Coastal Benthic Substrates: In situ Spectra and Mapping of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada

2011· article· en· W2030483518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer O'Neill, Maycira Costa, Tara Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZostera marinaHyperspectral imagingEnvironmental scienceBenthic zoneRemote sensingOceanographySeagrassEcosystemEcologyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a keystone component of inter- and sub-tidal ecosystems. However, anthropogenic pressures have caused its populations to decline worldwide. Delineation and continuous monitoring of eelgrass distribution is an integral part of understanding these pressures and providing effective coastal ecosystem management. A proposed tool for such spatial monitoring is remote imagery, which can cost- and time-effectively cover large and inaccessible areas frequently. However, to effectively apply this technology, an understanding is required of the spectral behavior of eelgrass and its associated substrates. In this study, in situ hyperspectral measurements were used to define key spectral variables that provide the greatest spectral separation between Z. marina and associated submerged substrates. For eelgrass classification of an in situ above water reflectance dataset, the selected variables were: slope 500–530 nm, first derivatives (R’) at 566 nm, 580 nm, and 602 nm, yielding 98% overall accuracy. When the in situ reflectance dataset was water-corrected, the selected variables were: 566:600 and 566:710, yielding 97% overall accuracy. The depth constraint for eelgrass identification with the field spectrometer was 5.0 to 6.0 m on average, with a range of 3.0 to 15.0 m depending on the characteristics of the water column. A case study involving benthic classification of hyperspectral airborne imagery showed the major advantage of the variable selection was meeting the sample size requirements of the more statistically complex Maximum Likelihood classifier. Results of this classifier yielded eelgrass classification accuracy of over 85%. The depth limit of eelgrass spectral detection for the AISA sensor was 5.5 m.

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 score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207