MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048542741 · doi:10.5558/tfc81149-1

Enhancing forest inventories with mountain pine beetle infestation information

2005· article· en· W2048542741 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael A. Wulder, R.S. Skakun, Steven E. Franklin, Joanne C. White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)Forest inventoryKey (lock)GeographyDecompositionRemote sensingMountain pine beetleEnvironmental scienceForestryForest managementComputer scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polygon decomposition is an approach for integrating different data sources within a GIS. We use this approach to understand the impacts associated with mountain pine beetle red attack. Three different sources of red attack information are considered: aerial overview sketch mapping, helicopter GPS surveys, and Landsat imagery. Existing inventory polygons are augmented with estimates of the proportion and area of red attack damage. Although differences are found in the area of the infestation, the affected forest stands have similar characteristics. Polygon decomposition adds value to existing forest inventories through update and the incorporation of new attributes applicable to forest management. Key words: polygon decomposition, forest inventory, GIS, mountain pine beetle, red attack, remote sensing, Landsat

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207