Temporal dependence of burn severity assessment in Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) forest of northern Mongolia using remotely sensed data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing burn severity is critical for understanding both the short- and long-term effects of fire disturbance on forest ecosystems. This study proposed a methodology to reconstruct burn severity from the Landsat imagery at different time lags after a fire (≤18 years) in Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) forest. The estimated accuracy of the burn severity models we developed indicated strong effects of forest recovery, image acquisition date and remote sensing predictors on the burn severity assessment. In the first several years after the fire, the dNBR (differenced Normalized Burn Ratio) was the most important remotely sensed index for assessing burn severity, followed by the dNDMI (differenced Normalized Difference Moisture Index) and dNDVI (differenced Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). However, the dNDMI was more important than the dNBR and dNDVI in explaining burn severity when larch forest regrowth dominated. The overall accuracy of the classification and regression tree models showed a decrease in accuracy from 83% to 62% depending on the lag times of burn severity assessment. The high severity class had the lowest omission and commission errors, followed by the low and moderate classes among lag times. Our evaluation of model transferability and thresholds of burn severity index demonstrates the advantage of the proposed methodology for rapid assessment of fire effects in boreal larch forest that will assist in understanding the complex relationships among forest fires and ecological processes in Eurasian boreal ecosystems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".