MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2984231294 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2019.8898483

Object-Oriented Monitoring of Forest Disturbances with ALOS/PALSAR Time-Series

2019· article· en· W2984231294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Z. Marshak, Marc Simard, Michael Denbina

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingPixelSupport vector machineRadar imagingComputer scienceRadarSegmentationArtificial 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 with Support Vector Machines (SVMs)trained on local radar backscatter features derived within 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. We evaluate four spatial arrangements including 1) single pixels, 2) square grid cells, 3) superpixels based on segmentation of the radar images, and 4) superixels derived from ancillary optical imagery (e.g. Landsat). Detection of forest loss with superpixels outperform single pixel and regular grid methods, especially when superpixels are generated from ancillary optical imagery. Results are validated with official Québec forestry data and Hansen forest loss products. Our results indicate that this approach may be applied operationally to monitor forests across large study areas with L-band radar instruments such as ALOS/PALSAR.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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