MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949971374 · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00683

Passive remote sensing technology for mapping bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana): A review of techniques and regional case study

2019· review· en· W2949971374 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Schroeder, Colleen Dupont, Leanna Boyer, Francis Juanes, Maycira Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Conservation · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsWildlife Conservation Society CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPacific Salmon FoundationUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsKelpRemote sensingHabitatKelp forestEnvironmental monitoringEnvironmental scienceScale (ratio)Environmental resource managementEcologyGeographyCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution and abundance of the canopy-forming kelp Nereocystis luetkeana is of increasing concern for environmental management and conservation in coastal regions due to its importance as a foundation species. Mapping kelp forests aids in understanding their health, productivity, and response to environmental conditions. Remote sensing using satellites is an increasingly accessible tool for mapping nearshore habitats allowing for applications such as long-term monitoring and large- and small-scale surveys. This paper provides a review of passive optical remote sensing techniques for detection and mapping of floating macro-algae, and adapts these techniques for detecting Nereocystis luetkeana , demonstrating their application through a comprehensive case study, from imagery acquisition to map validation. This review with associated case study communicates to non-remote sensing experts a road map to use remote sensing technology for mapping kelp habitats.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and ConservationSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207