MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102101592

Integrating spectral, spatial, and terrain variables for forest ecosystem classification

2000· article· en· W2102101592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Treitz, Peter Howarth

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainRemote sensingTaigaScale (ratio)GeographySpatial ecologyEnvironmental scienceForest ecologyEcosystemVegetation (pathology)Image resolutionBorealSpatial analysisPhysical geographyCartographyForestryEcologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sets of spectral, spectral-spatial, textural, and geomor- phometric variables derived fram high spatial resolution Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI)and elevation data are tested to determine their ability to discriminate landscape-scale forest ecosystem classes for a study area in northern Ontario, Canada. First, linear discriminant analysis for various spectral and spectral-spatial variables indicated that a spatial resolution of approximately 6 m was optimal for discriminating six landscape-scaleforest ecosystem classes. Second, texture features, using second-order spatial statistics, significantly improved discrimination of the classes over the originalreflectance data. Finally, addition of terrain descriptors improved discrimination of the six forest ecosystem classes. It has been demonstrated that, in a low- to moderate-relief boreal environment,addition of textural and terrain variables to high- resolution CASI reflectance data provides improved discrim- ination of forest ecosystem classes.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations81
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University)Same topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207