MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065404522 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2014.6947653

Canadian arctic shoreline mapping using RADARSAT-2 and optical data through object-based classification

2014· article· en· W2065404522 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anne‐Marie Demers, Sarah Banks, Jon Pasher, Jason Duffe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsShoreArcticLand coverPhysical geographyThe arcticRemote sensingGeographyEnvironmental resource managementCover (algebra)Environmental scienceLand useCartographyOceanographyGeologyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environment Canada has an important role in preparing for environmental emergencies along the coast. Despite this, there is a significant information gap regarding the shoreline types found in the Canadian Arctic, compared to more southern regions. As such, the focus of this analysis was to assess the potential for accurate classification of a number of shoreline types using an object-based approach. Two study areas were assessed, including: Richards Island, Northwest Territories and Ivvavik, Yukon. For the former an overall accuracy of 74% was achieved, while for the latter average accuracy was 63%. Overall potential was observed for discrimination of some general land cover types. Future work will focused on continued testing of these methods, as part of future investigations under Environment Canada's Emergency Spatial Pre-SCAT for Arctic Coastal Ecosystems (eSPACE) project.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→