MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768885536 · doi:10.1002/2017gl075488

Using Multitemporal and Multispectral Airborne Lidar to Assess Depth of Peat Loss and Correspondence With a New Active Normalized Burn Ratio for Wildfires

2017· article· en· W2768885536 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. Chasmer, Chris Hopkinson, Richard M. Petrone, Michael Sitar

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOptech (Canada)University of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarPeatMultispectral imageEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingWetlandGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accuracy of depth of burn (an indicator of consumption) in peatland soils using prefire and postfire airborne light detection and ranging (lidar) data is determined within a wetland‐upland forest environment near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. The relationship between peat soil burn depth and an “active” normalized burn ratio (ANBR) is also examined beneath partially and fully burned forest and understory canopies using state‐of‐the‐art active reflectance from a multispectral lidar compared with normalized burn ratio (NBR) derived from Landsat 7 ETM+. We find significant correspondence between depth of burn, lidar‐derived ANBR, and difference NBR (dNBR) from Landsat. However, low‐resolution optical imagery excludes peatland burn losses in transition zones, which are highly sensitive to peat loss via combustion. The findings presented here illustrate the utility of this new remote sensing technology for expanding an area of research where it has previously been challenging to spatially detect and quantify such wildfire burn losses.

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)0.000
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207