MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555220256 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2017.1259556

Using Landsat Time-Series and LiDAR to Inform Aboveground Forest Biomass Baselines in Northern Minnesota, USA

2016· article· en· W2555220256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ram K. Deo, Matthew B. Russell, Grant M. Domke, Christopher W. Woodall, Michael J. Falkowski, Warren B. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthern Research Station
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceForest inventoryScale (ratio)Baseline (sea)GeographyBiomass (ecology)Series (stratigraphy)CartographyForest managementForestryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The publicly accessible archive of Landsat imagery and increasing regional-scale LiDAR acquisitions offer an opportunity to periodically estimate aboveground forest biomass (AGB) from 1990 to the present to align with the reporting needs of National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (NGHGIs). This study integrated Landsat time-series data, a state-wide LiDAR dataset, and a recent cycle of the national forest inventory (NFI) records in Minnesota, USA, to obtain a spatially explicit inventory of AGB across a large region of space and time back to the 1990 baseline used by the US NGHGI. Pixel-level polynomial models were fit to 6 time-series metrics of Landsat data to obtain fitted predictors that were ultimately coupled with the NFI data in a nonparametric modeling framework to map temporal AGB baselines. Eighteen candidate models, formulated using different combinations of LiDAR and Landsat metrics, revealed that the model using both Landsat and LiDAR metrics consistently performed better than the alternative models. The RMSE of the model using both Landsat and LiDAR was 27.2 Mg ha−1, against 31.39 Mg ha−1 for the model using only LiDAR metrics. We conclude that the fitted Landsat-based model (RMSE = 47.64 Mg ha−1) provides acceptable accuracy for the 1990-baseline mapping of AGB.

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)0.001
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 score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207