Using hyperspectral imagery to estimate forest floor consumption from wildfire in boreal forests of Alaska, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfire is a major forest disturbance in interior Alaska that can both directly and indirectly alter ecological processes. We used a combination of pre- and post-fire forest floor depths and post-fire ground cover assessments measured in the field, and high-resolution airborne hyperspectral imagery, to map forest floor conditions after the 2004 Taylor Complex in Alaska’s boreal forest. We applied a linear spectral unmixing model with five endmembers representing green moss, non-photosynthetic moss, charred moss, ash and soil to reflectance data to produce fractional cover maps. Our study sites spanned low to moderately high burn severity, and both black and white spruce forest types; high cover of green or non-photosynthetic moss in the remotely sensed imagery indicated low consumption, whereas high cover of charred moss, ash or soil indicated higher consumption. Strong relationships (R2 = 0.5 to 0.6) between green moss estimated from the imagery and both post-fire depth and percentage consumption suggest that potential burn severity may be predicted by a map of green (live) moss. Given that the depth of the post-fire forest floor is ecologically significant, the method of mapping the condition of the organic forest floor with hyperspectral imagery presented here may be a useful tool to assess the effect of future fires in the boreal region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".