MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921260950 · doi:10.3390/rs11050556

Monitoring Forest Loss in ALOS/PALSAR Time-Series with Superpixels

2019· article· en· W2921260950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charlie Marshak, Marc Simard, Michael Denbina

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJet Propulsion Laboratory
KeywordsRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarPixelSupport vector machineRadarRadar imagingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a flexible methodology to identify forest loss in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) L-band ALOS/PALSAR images. Instead of single pixel analysis, we generate spatial segments (i.e., superpixels) based on local image statistics to track homogeneous patches of forest across a time-series of ALOS/PALSAR images. Forest loss detection is performed using an ensemble of Support Vector Machines (SVMs) trained on local radar backscatter features derived from superpixels. This method is applied to time-series of ALOS-1 and ALOS-2 radar images over a boreal forest within the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve in Québec, Canada. We evaluate four spatial arrangements including (1) single pixels, (2) square grid cells, (3) superpixels based on segmentation of the radar images, and (4) superpixels derived from ancillary optical Landsat imagery. Detection of forest loss using superpixels outperforms single pixel and regular square grid cell approaches, especially when superpixels are generated from ancillary optical imagery. Results are validated with official Québec forestry data and Hansen et al. forest loss products. Our results indicate that this approach can be applied to monitor forest loss across large study areas using L-band radar instruments such as ALOS/PALSAR, particularly when combined with superpixels generated from ancillary optical data.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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