MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123395080 · doi:10.5589/m10-059

Estimating the age of cerrado regeneration using Landsat TM data

2010· article· en· W2123395080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philippe Maillard, Priscilla S. Costa-Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomeThematic MapperEucalyptusGeographyVegetation (pathology)Thematic mapRegeneration (biology)ForestryRange (aeronautics)Remote sensingForest regenerationBiodiversityPhysical geographyCartographyEnvironmental scienceSatellite imageryEcologyEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerrado is a woody savanna formation covering about one fifth of Brazil with a very complex structure and rich biodiversity. Its rate of conversion surpasses that of all other biomes in Brazil. Remote sensing is the only practical means to monitor the evolution of its conversion and regeneration. The objective of this article is to study the process of regeneration of cerrado vegetation after being a eucalyptus plantation for two decades and to estimate its age using multitemporal Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data. The study area is a state park in Minas Gerais that was a eucalyptus plantation until 1994 with a broad range of regeneration ages between 13 and 34 years. A total of 47 plots were surveyed for which the exact ages of regeneration are known. Eighteen Landsat TM images were digitally processed to model the reflectance trajectory of the regenerating cerrado and determine its age. Results show that spectral data can be used for estimating the age regeneration up to 30 years with an average accuracy of 3–4 years. In particular, the spectral trajectory of band 5 of TM data shows an almost linear trend that directly relates to the time elapsed after the clearcut.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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