MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099668548 · doi:10.5589/m08-066

Monitoring Canada’s forests. Part 1: Completion of the EOSD land cover project

2008· article· en· W2099668548 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Michael A. Wulder, Joanne C. White, Morgan Cranny, Ronald J. Hall, J. Luther, André Beaudoin, D.G. Goodenough, Jeff A Dechka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsGeographyLand coverGeneral partnershipEnvironmental resource managementThematic MapperThematic mapAgency (philosophy)Land useEnvironmental planningRemote sensingBusinessCartographySatellite imageryEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capture of land cover information is a key requirement for supporting forest monitoring and management. In Canada, provincial and territorial forest stewards use land cover information to aid in management and planning activities. At the federal level, land cover information is required to aid in meeting national and international reporting obligations. To support monitoring of Canada’s forests, the Earth Observation for Sustainable Developments of Forests (EOSD) project was initiated as a partnership between the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), with provincial and territorial participation and support. The EOSD project produced a 23 class land cover map of the forested area of Canada representing circa year 2000 conditions (EOSD LC 2000). Including image overlap outside of the forested area of Canada, over 480 Landsat-7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) images were classified and more than 80% of Canada was mapped, culminating in the production of 630 1:250 000 map sheet products for unfettered sharing. EOSD LC 2000 is the most detailed and comprehensive map of the forested area of Canada ever produced. The objectives of this communication are to provide background on the project and associated methods, summarize the process of product development and dissemination, and provide a synopsis of the resultant land cover tabulations. Finally, key lessons learned from undertaking such a large, multipartner, collaborative project are provided.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations248
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207