MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770061999 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0184

Tracking forest attributes across Canada between 2001 and 2011 using a <i>k</i> nearest neighbors mapping approach applied to MODIS imagery

2017· article· en· W2770061999 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André Beaudoin, Pierre Y. Bernier, Philippe Villemaire, Luc Guindon, X J Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest inventoryBiomass (ecology)Tree (set theory)Physical geographyForest coverEnvironmental scienceGeographyRemote sensingForestryCartographyForest managementEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping Canada’s forests is a significant challenge given their extent and the interprovincial differences in forest inventories. We created new sets of nationally consistent forest attribute maps for the years 2001 and 2011 by building upon previously published work with the objective to determine if sequential maps of forest attributes could be used to quantify changes over time. We first refined our previously published methodology of using the k nearest neighbors (kNN) prediction method and MODIS spectral reflectance data as predictive variables. The maps were generated using an improved reference dataset and a new analytical kNN workflow. We then evaluated 2001 to 2011 changes in two key attributes, aboveground biomass and percent tree cover, on pixels identified from published sources as having undergone fire, harvest, or postdisturbance regrowth during that period. For all three change types, average changes in both aboveground biomass and percent tree cover between 2001 and 2011 matched expectations relative to the dynamics of Canadian forests. Our results support the use of sequential national maps of forest attributes for evaluating regionally aggregated disturbance-related changes in forest properties. The new forest attribute maps are available from Beaudoin et al. (2017 ; doi: 10.23687/ec9e2659-1c29-4ddb-87a2-6aced147a990) at http://ouvert.canada.ca/data/fr/dataset/ec9e2659-1c29-4ddb-87a2-6aced147a990 .

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations61
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207