MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259559198

Remote Sensing for Detecting and Mapping Flowering Rush: A Case Study in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR), Ohio

2012· article· en· W2259559198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arisca Droog

Bibliographic record

VenueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBowling Green State University
KeywordsWildlife refugeWildlifeGeographyRemote sensingCartographyArchaeologyFisheryEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting and mapping invasive wetland plant species is an important process for future management decisions and strategies.Controlling and mapping such plant species requires robust methods that are applicable at different ecological scales to map and monitor their spread.In particular, this study tested the feasibility of classification tree analysis (CTA) by using a high resolution Applanix 439 Digital Sensor System (DSS) aerial imagery (< 20 cm) and linear spectral unmixing (LSU) analysis by using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data to produce different distribution maps of invasive flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) potential in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR) wetlands, in Northwest Ohio.The classification accuracy from CTA maps derived from different splitting rules wasevaluated by kappa statistics.The overall accuracy within the different runs varied between 35 to 56 % while the "Gini" splitting rule had the best performance.The endmembers from the best CTA performing map were utilized by the LSU method for estimating sub-pixel endmember fractions at a broader geographical scale.The results derived from the aerial imagery were slightly better than those from the Landsat imagery, as the goodness of fit between the flowering rush fraction map and the data measured in the field was lower.This study was intended to demonstrate the potential for flowering rush mapping over larger area using knowledge developed from smaller geographical scale using high resolution imagery.Results indicate that both methods show promising results for the prediction of flowering rush, but additional research iv that encompass different field data collection techniques, datasets of imagery and modeling methods need to be explored.v I dedicate this to my mother MarieAnne, my father Bob, and to my brothers Bob Jr, Cilvani and Dilano.Thank you for all of your love, support, and encouragement.

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)0.001
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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207