Satellite-based mapping of Canadian boreal forest fires: Evaluation and comparison of algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates annual fire maps that were produced from NOAA-14/AVHRR imagery using an algorithm described in a companion paper (Li et al., International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 3057-3069, 2000 (this issue)). Burned area masks covering the Canadian boreal forest were created by compositing the daily maps of fire hot spots over the summer and by examining Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) changes after burning. Both masks were compared with fire polygons derived by Canadian fire agencies through aerial surveillance. It was found that the majority of fire events were captured by the satellite-based techniques, but burnt area was generally underestimated. The burn boundary formed by the fire pixels detected by satellite were in good agreement with the polygons boundaries within which, however, there were some fires missed by the satellite. The presence of clouds and low sampling frequency of satellite observation are the two major causes for the underestimation. While this problem is alleviated by taking advantage of NDVI changes, a simple combination of a hot spot technique with a NDVI method is not an ideal solution due to the introduction of new sources of uncertainty. In addition, the performance of the algorithm used in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Data and Information System (IGBPDIS) for global fire detection was evaluated by comparing its results with ours and with the fire agency reports. It was found that the IGBP-DIS algorithm is capable of detecting the majority of fires over the boreal forest, but also includes many false fires over old burned scars created by fires taking place in previous years. A step-by-step comparison between the two algorithms revealed the causes of the problem and recommendations are made to rectify them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".