MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765928085 · doi:10.3390/rs9111098

Circa 2010 Land Cover of Canada: Local Optimization Methodology and Product Development

2017· article· en· W2765928085 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R. Latifovic, Darren Pouliot, Ian Olthof

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Space AgencyU.S. Forest ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsLand coverThematic MapperThematic mapRemote sensingGeographyLand useCartographyComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceSatellite imageryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land cover information is necessary for a large range of environmental applications related to climate impacts and adaption, emergency response, wildlife habitat, etc. In Canada, a 2008 user survey indicated that the most practical land cover data is provided in a nationwide 30 m spatial resolution format, with an update frequency of five years. In response to this need, the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS) has generated a 30 m land cover map of Canada for the base year 2010, as the first of a planned series of maps to be updated every five years, or more frequently. This land cover dataset is also the Canadian contribution to the 30 m spatial resolution 2010 Land Cover Map of North America, which is produced by Mexican, American and Canadian government institutions under a collaboration called the North American Land Change Monitoring System (NALCMS). This paper describes the mapping approach used for generating this land cover dataset for Canada from Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) Landsat sensor observations. The innovative part of the mapping approach is the local optimization of the land cover classifier, which has resulted in increased spatial consistency and accuracy. Training and classifying with locally confined reference samples over a large number of partially overlapping areas (i.e., moving windows) ensures the optimization of the classifier to a local land cover distribution, and decreases the negative effect of signature extension. A weighted combination of labels, which is determined by the classifier in overlapping windows, defines the final label for each pixel. Since the approach requires extensive computation, it has been developed and deployed using the Government of Canada’s High-Performance Computing Center (HPC). An accuracy assessment based on 2811 randomly distributed samples shows that land cover data produced with this new approach has achieved 76.60% accuracy with no marked spatial disparities.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.012

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations125
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207