MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070152079 · doi:10.5558/tfc81525-4

Predictive spatial modelling of landscape change in the Foothills Model Forest

2005· article· en· W2070152079 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Falk Huettmann, Steven E. Franklin, Gordon B. Stenhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsFoothillsWildlifeEnvironmental resource managementGeographyVegetation (pathology)Land coverEcological successionSatellite imageryLand useForest managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyForestryCartographyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling landscape change has been identified as one of the most significant challenges relevant to wildlife management and conservation, but many spatial tools are not well understood and there are few practical examples of their use. We present an approach to predictive spatial modelling to derive future landscape scenarios ranging from 0 to 100 years in the Foothills Model Forest. A basic input in modelling future landscapes is a land cover classification developed from satellite imagery; subsequent landscape changes are introduced with model subcomponents for forestry, fire, oil and gas exploration and development, natural succession, and vegetation growth (forest age). The resulting landscapes are used in wildlife management planning. Key words: future landscapes scenario, satellite imagery, wildlife management, spatial modeling

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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