MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532913256 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0244

Using Landsat time series imagery to detect forest disturbance in selectively logged tropical forests in Myanmar

2016· article· en· W2532913256 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Katsuto Shimizu, Raúl Ponce-Hernandez, Oumer S. Ahmed, Tetsuji Ota, Zar Chi Win, Nobuya Mizoue, Shigejiro Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceSumitomo Foundation
KeywordsLoggingDisturbance (geology)Forest degradationDeforestation (computer science)Environmental scienceTropicsForestryGeographyEcologyLand degradationGeologyComputer scienceLand use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting forest disturbances is an important task in formulating mitigation strategies for deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics. Our study investigated the use of Landsat time series imagery combined with a trajectory-based analysis for detecting forest disturbances resulting exclusively from selective logging in Myanmar. Selective logging was the only forest disturbance and degradation indicator used in this study as a causative force, and the results showed that the overall accuracy for forest disturbance detection based on selective logging was 83.0% in the study area. The areas affected by selective logging and other factors accounted for 4.7% and 5.4%, respectively, of the study area from 2000 to 2014. The detected disturbance areas were underestimated according to error assessments; however, a significant correlation between areas of disturbance and numbers of harvested trees during the logging year was observed, indicating the utility of a trajectory-based, annual Landsat imagery time series analysis for selective logging detection in the tropics. A major constraint of this study was the lack of available data for disturbances other than selective logging. Further studies should focus on identifying other types of disturbances and their impacts on future forest conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207