MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901071316 · doi:10.4095/299044

Remote sensing of natural disturbance caused by insect defoliation and dieback: a review

2016· review· en· W2901071316 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald J. Hall, J.J. van der Sanden, Jason T. Freeburn, Stephen J. Thomas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)InsectNatural (archaeology)GeographyBiologyEcologyArchaeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preface The objective of this report is to review the requirements for disturbance information, the manifestation of damage patterns that may be encountered, and to provide an overview of remote sensing sensors and change detection methods that have been, or could be applied to mapping of insect defoliation and aspen dieback. It was developed with financial support from the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS) as part of a Government-Related Initiatives Program (GRIP) project entitled "Gauging the Health of Canada's Forests: Accounting for Insect Defoliation and Dieback in the Indicators of Sustainability for Canadians". The report was first submitted as a deliverable to the CSA in 2007 and reviews the utility of both optical and radar remote sensing sensors and change detection approaches. For this release of the report as a Geomatics Canada Open File, the text was revised in part to relay major developments regarding the availability of satellite sensors and change detection methods in particular. A comprehensive review of literature published after 2007 was beyond the scope of the revision. A recent review paper by Hall et al. (2016) draws from this report but is limited to a discussion of the utility of optical sensor systems and change detection methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207