Predictions of forest inventory cover type proportions using Landsat TM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of generating via Landsat TM data current estimates of cover type proportions for areas lacking this information in the national forest inventory was explored by a case study in New Brunswick. A recent forest management inventory covering 4196 km2 in south-eastern New Brunswick (the test area) and a coregistered Landsat TM scene was used to develop predictive models of 12 cover type proportions in an adjacent 4525 km2 region (the validation area). Four prediction models were considered, one using a maximum likelihood classifier (MLC), and three using the proportions of 30 TM clusters as predictors. The MLC was superior for non-vegetated cover types while a neural net or a prorating of cluster proportions was chosen for predicting vegetated cover types. Most predictions generated for national inventory photo-plots of 2 x 2 km were closer to the most recent inventory results than estimates extrapolated from the test area. Agreement between predictions and current inventory results varied considerably among cover types with model-based predictions outperforming, on average, the simple spatial extensions by about 14%. In this region, an 11-year-old forest inventory for the validation area provided estimates that in half the cases were closer to current inventory estimates than predictions using the optimal Landsat TM model. A strong temporal correlation of photo-plot-level cover type proportions made old-values more consistent than predictions using the optimal Landsat TM model in all but three cases. Prorating of cluster proportions holds promise for large-scale multi-sensor predictions of forest inventory cover types.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".