MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297398394 · doi:10.3390/rs8030256

Ash Decline Assessment in Emerald Ash Borer Infested Natural Forests Using High Spatial Resolution Images

2016· article· en· W2297398394 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Justin Murfitt, Yuhong He, Jian Yang, Amy Mui, Kevin De Mille

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsCredit Valley HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto MississaugaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEmerald ash borerHigh resolutionEnvironmental scienceNatural forestForestryAgroforestryGeographyRemote sensingEcologyBiologyFraxinus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The invasive emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) infects and eventually kills endemic ash trees and is currently spreading across the Great Lakes region of North America. The need for early detection of EAB infestation is critical to managing the spread of this pest. Using WorldView-2 (WV2) imagery, the goal of this study was to establish a remote sensing-based method for mapping ash trees undergoing various infestation stages. Based on field data collected in Southeastern Ontario, Canada, an ash health score with an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 was established and further related to multiple spectral indices. The WV2 image was segmented using multi-band watershed and multiresolution algorithms to identify individual tree crowns, with watershed achieving higher segmentation accuracy. Ash trees were classified using the random forest classifier, resulting in a user’s accuracy of 67.6% and a producer’s accuracy of 71.4% when watershed segmentation was utilized. The best ash health score-spectral index model was then applied to the ash tree crowns to map the ash health for the entire area. The ash health prediction map, with an overall accuracy of 70%, suggests that remote sensing has potential to provide a semi-automated and large-scale monitoring of EAB infestation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207