MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2071785404 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2014.6946553

Analyzing a North American prairie wildfire using remote sensing imagery

2014· article· en· W2071785404 on OpenAlexaff
Bing Lu, Yuhong He

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrasslandNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)EcosystemBiomass (ecology)AridPhysical geographyRemote sensingNational parkVegetation IndexDisturbance (geology)Grassland ecosystemSatellite imageryForestryHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeographyClimate changeGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grassland wildfires have profound immediate effects on ecosystems. A wildfire that occurred in Grasslands National Park (GNP) on April 27th2013 has severely disturbed the local ecosystem. This study was thus conducted to evaluate impacts of the fire on this semi-arid grassland. Spectral indices including Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR), Mid-Infrared Burn Index (MIRBI), and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), derived from Landsat images were explored to evaluate the burn severity, to assess the relationship between pre-fire vegetation parameters and burn severity, and to analyze the vegetation recovery progress. Results indicated that while the selected spectral indices were all able to detect burn severity, the MIRBI showed the best performance. Severely burned areas were distributed along a river where a large amount of pre-fire dead biomass had accumulated. Overall the grassland ecosystem showed a strong resilience by recovering quickly after the fire.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→