MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159621004 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2002.1026100

A strategy for mapping Canada's Forest biomass with Landsat TM imagery

2003· article· en· W2159621004 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. Luther, Richard Fournier, Ronald J. Hall, Chhun-Huor Ung, Luc Guindon, D.E. Piercey, M.-C. Lambert, André Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsThematic MapperBiomass (ecology)Environmental resource managementForest inventoryEnvironmental scienceThematic mapSatellite imageryRemote sensingForest ecologyForest managementEarth observationGeographyEcosystemSatelliteAgroforestryEcologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of forest biomass are needed to meet Canada's international reporting requirements and to provide important inputs for global change, carbon accounting, and forest productivity models. The Canadian Forest Service, in cooperation with the Canadian Space Agency, has developed a strategy for mapping Canada's forest biomass as part of the Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests (EOSD) Project. The strategy includes: (i) development of a biomass mapping method, (ii) regional expansion of the method, and (iii) national implementation. The method estimates forest biomass at the forest management stand level using forest cover type and structure information extracted from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data. Regional expansion of the method has occurred over several pilot regions that represent a range of forest ecosystems across Canada. Validation of regional products provides an indication of the precision of the method, defines the data requirements and limits to regional expansion, and has led to the development of research themes. Specific research themes address known limitations of the method by (i) improving the extraction of cover type and structure information from satellite imagery, (ii) defining the role of environmental variables and other factors for biomass estimation, and (iii) separating understorey and overstorey biomass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207