Delineation of peatland lagg boundaries from airborne LiDAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Canada, peatlands are the most common type of wetland, but boundary delineation in peatland complexes has received little attention in the scientific literature. Typically, peatland boundaries are mapped as crisp, absolute features, and the transitional lagg zone—the ecotone found between a raised bog and the surrounding mineral land—is often overlooked. In this study, we aim (1) to advance existing approaches for detecting and locating laggs and lagg boundaries using airborne LiDAR surveys and (2) to describe the spatial distribution of laggs around raised bog peatlands. Two contrasting spatial analytical approaches for lagg detection were tested using five LiDAR‐derived topographic and vegetation indices: topography, vegetation height, topographic wetness index, the standard deviation of the vegetation's height (as a proxy for the complexity of the vegetation's structure), and local indices of elevation variance. Using a dissimilarity approach (edge‐detection, split‐moving window analysis), no one variable accurately depicted both the lagg‐mineral land and bog‐lagg boundaries. Some indicators were better at predicting the bog‐lagg boundary (i.e., vegetation height) and others at finding the lagg‐mineral land boundary (i.e., topography). Dissimilarity analysis reinforces the usefulness of derived variables (e.g., wetness indices) in locating laggs, especially for those with weak topographic and vegetation gradients. When the lagg was confined between the bog and the adjacent upland, it took a linear form, parallel to the peatland's edge and was easier to predict. When the adjacent mineral land was flat or sloping away from the peatland, the lagg was discontinuous and intermittent and more difficult to predict.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".