MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2338138057

Q2 How wetland type and area differ through scale: A GEOBIA case study in Alberta's

2011· article· en· W2338138057 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Boreal Plains, Geoffrey J. Hay, Gang Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandScale (ratio)Spatial ecologyPixelThematic mapEnvironmental scienceCartographyGeographyRemote sensingBorealObject basedPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)EcologyComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

article i nfo It is estimated that Canada comprises approximately 28% of the world's wetlands (~1.5 million km 2 ) providing essential ecological services such as purifying water, nutrient cycling, reducing flooding, recharging ground water supplies, and protecting shorelines. In order to better understand how wetland type and area differ over a range of spatial and thematic scales, this paper introduces a multi-scale geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA) approach that incorporates new object-based texture measures (geotex) and a decision-tree classifier (See5), to assess wetland differences through five common spatial resolutions (5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 m) and two different thematic classification schemes. Themes are based on (i) a Ducks Unlimited (DU: 15 class) regional classification system for wetlands in the Boreal Plain Ecosystem and (ii) the Canadian Wetland Inventory (CWI: 5 classes). Results reveal that the highest overall accuracies (67.9% and 82.2%) were achieved at the 10 m spatial resolution for both the DU and CWI classification schemes respectively. It was also found that the DU wetland types experienced greater area differences through scale with the largest differences for both classification schemes occurring in classes with a large treed component. Results further show that the inclusion of geotex channels (generated from dynamically sized and shaped window that measures the spatial variability of the wetland components composing a scene, rather than of individual pixels within a fixed sized window) improved wetland classification.

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)0.000
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Use and Ecosystem Services→French-language works237,207→