MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2439576902 · doi:10.1080/17538947.2016.1187673

Mass data processing of time series Landsat imagery: pixels to data products for forest monitoring

2016· article· en· W2439576902 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Txomin Hermosilla, Michael A. Wulder, Joanne C. White, Nicholas C. Coops, Geordie Hobart, Lorraine Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Digital Earth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRemote sensingPixelTime seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Satellite imageryGeographyComputer scienceCartographyArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free and open access to the Landsat archive has enabled the implementation of national and global terrestrial monitoring projects. Herein, we summarize a project characterizing the change history of Canada’s forested ecosystems with a time series of data representing 1984–2012. Using the Composite2Change approach, we applied spectral trend analysis to annual best-available-pixel (BAP) surface reflectance image composites produced from Landsat TM and ETM+ imagery. A total of 73,544 images were used to produce 29 annual image composites, generating ∼400 TB of interim data products and resulting in ∼25 TB of annual gap-free reflectance composites and change products. On average, 10% of pixels in the annual BAP composites were missing data, with 86% of pixels having data gaps in two consecutive years or fewer. Change detection overall accuracy was 89%. Change attribution overall accuracy was 92%, with higher accuracy for stand-replacing wildfire and harvest. Changes were assigned to the correct year with an accuracy of 89%. Outcomes of this project provide baseline information and nationally consistent data source to quantify and characterize changes in forested ecosystems. The methods applied and lessons learned build confidence in the products generated and empower others to develop or refine similar satellite-based monitoring projects.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations285
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Digital EarthSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207