MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3008514470 · doi:10.3390/rs12040708

A New Model for Transfer Learning-Based Mapping of Burn Severity

2020· article· en· W3008514470 on OpenAlexaff
Zhong Zheng, Jinfei Wang, Bo Shan, Yongjun He, Chunhua Liao, Yanghua Gao, Shiqi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Park ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyEducation Department of Sichuan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaJoint Fire Science ProgramChina Scholarship CouncilChengdu University of Information TechnologyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMean squared errorField surveySupport vector machineEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceField (mathematics)StatisticsMachine learningCartographyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, global forest fires have occurred more frequently, seriously destroying the structural functions of forest ecosystem. Mapping the burn severity after forest fires is of great significance for quantifying fire’s effects on landscapes and establishing restoration measures. Generally, intensive field surveys across burned areas are required for the effective application of traditional methods. Unfortunately, this requirement could not be satisfied in most cases, since the field work demands a lot of personnel and funding. For mapping severity levels across burned areas without field survey data, a semi-supervised transfer component analysis-based support vector regression model (SSTCA-SVR) was proposed in this study to transfer knowledge trained from other burned areas with field survey data. Its performance was further evaluated in various eco-type regions of southwestern United States. Results show that SSTCA-SVR which was trained on source domain areas could effectively be transferred to a target domain area. Meanwhile, the SSTCA-SVR could maintain as much spectral information as possible to map burn severity. Its mapped results are more accurate (RMSE values were between 0.4833 and 0.6659) and finer, compared to those mapped by ∆NDVI-, ∆LST-, ∆NBR- (RMSE values ranged from 0.7362 to 1.1187) and SVR-based models (RMSE values varied from 1.7658 to 2.0055). This study has introduced a potentially efficient mechanism to map burn severity, which will speed up the response of post-fire management.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote Sensing→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→