MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166234440 · doi:10.5589/m02-007

Empirical relations between Landsat TM spectral response and forest stands near Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, Canada

2002· article· en· W2166234440 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
G. R. Gerylo, Ronald J. Hall, Steven E. Franklin, Lisa Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic MapperGeographyJack pinePhysical geographyForestryEcological successionThinningEcologySatellite imageryRemote sensingBiologyPinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical relationships between forest stand variables, such as age and crown closure, and spectral response measured by the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite sensor have long been suggested as an information source to support forest inventories in many regions of the world. Using regression and correlation techniques, the authors have identified the form and strength of these empirical relationships for a sample of forest stands near Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories. Models were strongest for pioneer forest species such as jack pine and trembling aspen as these relationships were characterized by reasonably consistent changes in stand structure and composition. White spruce, a secondary successional species, produced the statistically weakest models from Landsat TM spectral response patterns for all stand variables with the exception of crown closure. The authors attribute the differences in model strength to variable trends in stem growth and stand structural changes caused by differing successional pathways for white spruce stands in this region.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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