Landscape Heterogeneity Effects on Scaling and Monitoring Large Areas Using Remote Sensing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the increasing rate of landscape change, researchers have realized that managing natural resources sustainably requires knowledge about ecosystems over more than one temporal and spatial scale. Monitoring ecosystem integrity implies sampling over long periods of time and space to identify any significant changes. Subsequently, remote sensing has become integral to many large-scale monitoring efforts. Nonetheless, there remain aspects related to scaling which limit the ability to detect landscape change with a maximal amount of inference. While successive analyses can be used to estimate errors, it is not clear how spatial reorganization resulting from scaling has diluted the signal of the processes embodied within the observed patterns. To achieve a maximal amount of inference, it is first necessary to match three scales: spatial heterogeneity, the scales of the ecological processes creating landscape heterogeneity, and the spatial and temporal resolutions of the image used in the analysis. We discuss the relationship between scale of spatial pattern, image analysis, and scale of process and how their interactions affect large-scale monitoring quality. In particular, we assert that the interactions between pattern and process need to be considered explicitly when designing large-scale monitoring to accurately describe ecological change. This study and others further support the suggestion that monitoring be coupled with spatio-temporal models to elucidate the mapping from pattern to process across scales. It is stressed that future research efforts be directed to understanding the characterization of space-time relationships implicit in pattern and that we move beyond the space-time duality approach to analysis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".