MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097000495 · doi:10.5558/tfc82187-2

Augmenting the existing survey hierarchy for mountain pine beetle red-attack damage with satellite remotely sensed data

2006· article· en· W2097000495 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael A. Wulder, Joanne C. White, Barbara Bentz, Tim Ebata

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaMinistry of ForestsCanadian Sport Centre PacificNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsMountain pine beetleDendroctonusRemote sensingSatelliteKey (lock)HierarchyMatching (statistics)Environmental scienceComputer scienceBark beetleGeographyForestryComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of the location and extent of the red-attack stage of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) infestations are critical for forest management. The degree of spatial and temporal precision required for these estimates varies according to the management objectives and the nature of the infestation. This paper outlines the range of information requirements associated with mountain pine beetle infestations, from the perspectives of forest inventory, planning, and modeling. Current methods used to detect and map red-attack damage form a hierarchy of increasingly detailed data sources. The capability of satellite-based remotely sensed data to integrate into this hierarchy and provide data that is complementary to existing survey methods is presented, with specific examples using medium (Landsat) and high (IKONOS) spatial resolution imagery. The importance of matching the information requirement to the appropriate data source is emphasized as a means to reduce the overhead associated with data collection and processing. Key words: mountain pine beetle, red-attack, remote sensing, detection, Landsat, IKONOS

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)0.001
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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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