A Physically Based Terrain Morphology and Vegetation Structural Classification for Wetlands of the Boreal Plains, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to test a cost-effective, physically based Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) classification methodology for wetland and upland land cover types within an area exceeding 1,000 km2 in the Boreal Plains, Alberta, Canada. Decision criteria are based on physical attributes of the landscape that influence maintenance of land cover types. Results are compared with 38 geolocated measurement plots at land cover boundaries and transition zones, manual delineation of 2,337 wetlands using photogrammetric methods and publicly available land cover classifications.Results suggest that 57% of LiDAR-based wetland classes correspond with delineated wetlands, whereas 37% occur as errors of commission due to excluded wetlands in the manual delineation and confusion with harvested areas. Comparison of classified edges with plot shows that all classifications underestimate wetland area. Residual differences of the LiDAR-based classification are −0.3 m, on average (compared with measured), and have reduced range of error compared with other methods. Multispectral classifications misclassify up to 2/3 of wetland boundaries as a result of lower-resolution mixed pixels. Therefore, high-resolution maps of terrain morphology and vegetation structure provide an accurate, cost-effective means for characterizing wetland vs. upland forest in areas where LiDAR data are available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".