The suitability of decadal image data sets for mapping tropical forest cover change in the Democratic Republic of Congo: implications for the global land survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landsat remote sensing of the central African humid tropics is confounded by persistent cloud cover and, since 2003, missing data due to the Landsat‐7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) scan line corrector (SLC) malfunction. To quantify these limitations and their effects on contemporary forest cover and change characterization, a comparison was made of multiple Landsat‐7 image mosaics generated for a six Landsat path/row study site in central Africa for 2000 and 2005. Epoch 2000 mosaics were generated by compositing (i) two to three Landsat acquisitions per path/row, (ii) using the best single GeoCover 2000 acquisition for each path/row. Epoch 2005 composites were generated by compositing SLC‐off data using (iii) five to seven acquisitions per path/row, (iv) three acquisitions per path/row. Eighty per cent of pixels were of suitable quality for change detection between (ii) and (iv), emulating that which is possible with current GeoCover and planned Global Land Survey (GLS) inputs. In a more data intensive change detection analysis using mosaics (i) and (iii), 96% of pixels had suitable quality. Compositing more acquisitions per path/row for the study area systematically reduced the percentage of SLC‐off gaps and, when more than three acquisitions were composited, reduced the percentage of pixels with high likelihood of cloud, haze or shadow. The results indicate that additional input imagery to augment both the Geocover and GLS data may be required to enable forest cover and change analyses for regions of the humid tropics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".