Mapping conifer understory within boreal mixedwoods from Landsat TM satellite imagery and forest inventory information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information about conifer understory within deciduous-dominated mixed-wood stands would increase the possible range of management options for these complex communities, yet cost-effective and accurate inventory methods remain elusive. Maps of conifer understory produced from field-checked photo interpretation were compared with classified images created from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and two image classifiers. The highest accuracy achieved was 71% using an evidential reasoning classifier that integrated satellite remote sensing observations with stand inventory information. The image map did provide an advantage by capturing some of the spatial variability of conifer understory that is not captured by photo interpretation methods. Predicting the presence and spatial distribution of conifer understory is difficult because its establishment is influenced by many factors such as ecosite, available substrate, distance to seed source and mechanisms of recruitment that are not typically available in spatial formats. The image maps are considered estimates that may be suitable for broad strategic planning, and may serve as validation information for national satellite land cover mapping initiatives. Keywords: boreal mixedwood, conifer understory, image classification, Landsat TM, reflectance, forest inventory, vegetation index
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".