MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155508917 · doi:10.1080/01431160903401361

Forest structure without ground data: Adaptive Full-Blind Multiple Forward-Mode reflectance model inversion in a mountain pine beetle damaged forest

2010· article· en· W2155508917 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Derek R. Peddle, Sarah Boon, Aaron P. Glover, Forrest G. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEndmemberRemote sensingCanopyReflectivityComputer scienceMode (computer interface)Environmental sciencePixelGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new approach for using canopy reflectance models (CRMs) is presented that requires no field data or knowledge about the study area or imagery. Multiple Forward-Mode Adaptive Full-Blind (MFM-AFB) modelling provides forest biophysical structural information (BSI), and can also be used for classification and spectral mixture analysis at sub-pixel scales without user-specified model inputs, training data or endmember spectra, as these are instead automatically derived. In an example application using 2007 Landsat imagery of forest damaged by a mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic in British Columbia, Canada, overall BSI accuracy was within ±1000 stems ha–1 for stand density, ±0.5 m for crown radius and ±1 m tree height for healthy and MPB stands. MFM-AFB software is suitable for regional, multi-temporal and unknown imagery and areas. By not requiring user-specified a priori model inputs to infer BSI, the MFM-AFB approach may help enable mainstream use of diverse and advanced CRMs for image analysis. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge NSERC, AICWR, PARC, NRCan, WestGrid, Boston University, CFS-MPBI, S. Soenen (University of Lethbridge), P. Teti and D. Lewis. The Editor and reviewers are thanked for their comments that helped to clarify the presentation.

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)0.000
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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207