MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2772685031 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2017.8127523

A space-time data cube: Multi-temporal forest structure maps from landsat and lidar

2017· article· en· W2772685031 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Giona Matasci, Txomin Hermosilla, Michael A. Wulder, Joanne C. White, Geordie Hobart, Harold S. J. Zald, Nicholas C. Coops

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingTaigaEnvironmental scienceGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we prototype the combination of samples of airborne LiDAR (LiDAR plots) and Landsat data to characterize the development of forest structure attributes through time. A nearest neighbor imputation model was developed using predictors generated from wall-to-wall Landsat best available pixel (BAP) composites and reference measurements of forest structure derived from LiDAR plots. The imputation model was then applied through time on a study area in Canada's boreal forest, resulting in forest structure maps with a 30 m resolution for the period 1984-2012. We characterize post-disturbance trends in these forest structural metrics following wildfire and harvest and offer insights on the large-area, temporally dense mapping opportunities offered by the synergistic use of samples of airborne LiDAR and Landsat BAP composites.

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)0.004
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→