MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965110601 · doi:10.3390/data4030114

A New Multi-Temporal Forest Cover Classification for the Xingu River Basin, Brazil

2019· article· en· W2965110601 on OpenAlexafffund
Margaret Kalácska, Oliver Lucanus, Leandro Melo de Sousa, J. Pablo Arroyo‐Mora

Bibliographic record

VenueData · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsLand coverGeographyForest coverBiodiversityBiodiversity hotspotStructural basinDrainage basinPhysical geographyLand useRemote sensingEcologyCartographyGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a new multi-temporal classification for forest/non-forest classes for a 1.3 million square kilometer area encompassing the Xingu River basin, Brazil. This region is well known for its exceptionally high biodiversity, especially in terms of the ichthyofauna, with approximately 600 known species, 10% of which are endemic to the river basin. Global and regional scale datasets do not adequately capture the rapidly changing land cover in this region. Accurate forest cover and forest cover change data are important for understanding the anthropogenic pressures on the aquatic ecosystems. We developed the new classifications with a minimum mapping unit of 0.8 ha from cloud free mosaics of Landsat TM5 and OLI 8 imagery in Google Earth Engine using a classification and regression tree (CART) aided by field photographs for the selection of training and validation points.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDataSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207