MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171272803 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2008.4778944

Comparison of Aviris and AISA Airborne Hyperspectral Sensing for Above-Ground Forest Carbon Mapping

2008· article· en· W2171272803 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D.G. Goodenough, K. Olaf Niemann, A. Dyk, Geordie Hobart, Piper Gordon, Matthew Loisel, Hao Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceLidarBiomass (ecology)WatershedGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring of the 418 million ha of forests in Canada is needed to ensure the sustainable development of these forests. Hyperspectral sensing can provide mapping of forest species, forest health, and above-ground biomass. Airborne two-meter AISA hyperspectral and LIDAR data were acquired by the University of Victoria (UVic) over the Greater Victoria Watershed District (GVWD) test site and compared to NASA's AVIRIS data that had been acquired in the summer of 2002 at 4 m spatial resolution. Tree heights derived from LIDAR data, and allometric equations were used to provide independent ground estimates of biomass. Between-sensor calibration calibrated the AISA data to the same basis as the AVIRIS data. The calibrated reflectance data were used to generate forest species classifications, and biomass estimates for the test site. Average classification accuracies exceeded 89% in mapping major forest species. These products were used to create a map of above-ground carbon for the forested portion of the GVWD test site.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207