MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084049068 · doi:10.5589/m10-004

Implications of land-use history for forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon

2009· article· en· W2084049068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cássia da Conceição Prates-Clark, Richard Lucas, Joáo Roberto dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmazon rainforestGeographyClearanceForest regenerationLand useSecondary forestForestryBiomass (ecology)Regeneration (biology)Old-growth forestAgroforestryForest inventoryDeforestation (computer science)Land use, land-use change and forestryAgricultureEcologyForest managementEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the dynamics of forest regeneration on abandoned agricultural land in the Amazon has often been restricted by limited knowledge of historical land use. This study compared time-series classifications of mature forest, nonforest, and regrowth generated from Landsat sensor data for areas north of the Brazilian cities of Manaus (1973–2003) and Santarém (1984–2003) to chronicle land histories and forest age. At Manaus, active land use prior to abandonment ranged from <1 year with no burning to >10–15 years with burning. Few forests were recleared on more than three occasions. From the mid-1980s, land was increasingly abandoned and, in 2003, over 75% of the deforested area supported regenerating forests, with several being older than 20 years. South of Santarém, forests were cleared up to seven times. In 2003, few regenerating forests were older than 10 years, and all land covers, but particularly mature forest, were damaged by extensive wildfires in 1993 and 1998. Based on previous research, the study concludes that the capacity of regenerating forests to recover biomass and tree species diversity will be reduced where prior land use is more intense, as in Santarém and some clearings north of Manaus.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207