Evaluating Spatial and Seasonal Variability of Wetlands in Eastern Ontario Using Remote Sensing and GIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetlands provide many ecological services, but are under threat from climate change and land modification amongst other stressors. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) currently uses the field-based Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) to assign scores to wetlands for planning and conservation purposes. These evaluations have been primarily from the field observer’s viewpoint, but were often augmented using analog air photo and/or digital ortho-photo interpretation. With such an approach overall spatial and temporal wetland dynamics were often overlooked or under represented. This research evaluated attributes in four wetland complexes through three seasons using remote sensing data. Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM, 30m) Radarsat-2 (8m), and WorldView-2 (0.5-2m) imagery were acquired, and several types of image metrics (e.g. vegetation indices, texture, and object metrics) were evaluated in mapping 14 OWES attributes. Differences were found in overall and specific class related accuracies for all 14 attributes of interest depending upon time of year, location, and/or data used. Eight attributes were successfully assessed using existing data or data developed using the methods of this research. Scores derived for four of those attributes were equivalent to the OWES field-measured scores. Some general technical conclusions from the research were that high resolution optical imagery provided higher overall accuracies for most attributes of interest. Coarse resolution optical imagery had higher overall accuracy for the attribute Open Water Type. Radar-based variables did not improve overall accuracies, but the addition of these variables to the optical imagery object-based image analysis (OBIA) improved some individual class accuracies. With respect to season of image acquisition, spring or summer imagery produced the highest accuracies. These results support an overview perspective with a top-down investigative approach for wetlands analysis in that they expose the inconsistencies and some consistencies in results between sites, between imagery types and/or at different times of year.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".