MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2496925416 · doi:10.1201/b11453-7

Using Earth Observation to Monitor Species-Specific Habitat Change in the Greater Kejimkujik National Park Region of Canada

2011· book-chapter· en· W2496925416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Zorn, Darien Ure, Rajeev Sharma, Sally O’Grady

Bibliographic record

VenueTaylor & Francis series in remote sensing applications · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyHabitatNational parkEarth (classical element)Earth observationEcologyPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingBiologyArchaeologySatellitePhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) adopted a de‰nition that describes a protected area as clearly de‰ned geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley 2008). In general, protected lands include areas such as national parks, national forests, national seashores, all levels of natural reserves, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries, and designated areas for conservation of native biological diversity and natural and cultural heritage and signi‰cance. Protected lands also include some of the last frontiers that have unique landscape characteristics and ecosystem functions. Along the shoreline and over the ocean and sea, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has de‰ned marine-protected areas (MPAs) as any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated ˜ora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or the entire enclosed environment (Kelleher 1999). As reported by the World Database on CONTENTS 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................1 1.2 Remote Sensing of Changing Landscape of Protected Lands ................5 1.3 Remote Sensing for Inventory, Mapping, and Conservation Planning of Protected Lands and Waters ...................................................9 1.4 Remote Sensing of Frontier Lands ............................................................ 13 1.5 Remote Sensing in Decision Support for Management of Protected Lands ....................................................................................... 16 1.6 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................... 17 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ 19 References ............................................................................................................... 20 Protected Areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2010), as of 2009, worldwide approximately 13% of the lands are designated as protected areas and about 0.8% waters along the shoreline and over the ocean are set as MPAs. In the United States, 14.81% of the terrestrial lands have been set as protected, and along the shoreline and over the ocean 24.75% of the terrestrial waters up to 12 nautical miles are set as MPAs. Protected lands and waters serve as the fundamental building blocks of virtually all national and international conservation strategies, supported by governments and international institutions. Those provide the core of efforts to protect the world’s threatened species and are increasingly recognized as essential providers of ecosystem services and biological resources; key components in climate change mitigation strategies; and in some cases also vehicles for protecting threatened human communities or sites of great cultural and spiritual value (Dudley 2008).

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaylor & Francis series in remote sensing applications→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→