MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989070319 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0508

Quantifying forest loss and forest degradation in Myanmar’s “home of teak”

2019· article· en· W2989070319 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thu Ya Kyaw, René H. Germain, Stephen V. Stehman, Lindi J. Quackenbush

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReforestationTectonaAfforestationForestryEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryBasal areaForest coverForest inventorySilvicultureSowingGeographyForest managementEcologyAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bago Mountain Range in Myanmar is known as the “home of teak” (Tectona grandis L. f.) because of its bountiful, naturally growing teak-bearing forests. Accelerating forest loss and degradation are threatening the sustainable production of teak in the region. Changes in land cover between 2000 and 2017 in four reserved forests of the Bago Mountain Range were mapped using supervised classification of Landsat imagery and training data collected in the field. A stratified random sample was used to collect reference data to assess accuracy of the maps and estimate area. Based on the reference sample, it was estimated that the forest area declined from 71 240 ha (standard error (SE) = 1524 ha) in 2000 to 40 891 ha (SE = 4404 ha) in 2017, whereas the area of degraded forests increased from 88 797 ha (SE = 1694 ha) to 97 013 ha (SE = 5395 ha). The annualized rates of gross forest loss and gross forest degradation were 1.03% and 0.97%, respectively, indicating that forest degradation paralleled forest loss. In many degraded areas, there is an opportunity to ameliorate the situation through silviculture. The 2017 map identifies bamboo-dominated degraded forests where enrichment planting or reforestation is recommended.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207