MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626210576 · doi:10.1111/btp.12454

Twenty‐first century remote sensing technologies are revolutionizing the study of tropical forests

2017· article· en· W2626210576 on OpenAlex
Arturo Sánchez‐Azofeifa, Jose Antonio Guzmán, Carlos Campos-Vargas, Saulo Castro, Virginia García Millán, Joanne Nightingale, Cassidy Rankine

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotropica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInter-American Institute for Global Change Research
KeywordsNexus (standard)Emerging technologiesData scienceRemote sensingField (mathematics)AnalyticsPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceEcologyGeographyArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The fields of tropical biology and conservation face significant transformations due to rapid technological developments in remote sensing. Other fields (e.g. Archeology) are experiencing this momentous change even more rapidly. In this article, we review some of the challenges that the fields of tropical biology and conservation face during the first quarter of the twenty‐first century from the perspective of various remote sensing technologies, and discuss the transformations that they may bring to these disciplines. In addition, we review two emerging technologies driving paradigm changes in the nexus of ecology, remote sensing, and analytics: near‐surface remote sensing and Wireless Sensor Networks. These two technologies, arising from the eS cience paradigm, offer unique opportunities to integrate field observations at hyper‐temporal and spatial resolutions that were not possible as recently as 5 years ago.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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