MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025204457 · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2020.111872

Recent trends and remaining challenges for optical remote sensing of Arctic tundra vegetation: A review and outlook

2020· review· en· W3025204457 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Beamish, Martha K. Raynolds, Howard E. Epstein, Gerald V. Frost, Matthew J. Macander, Helena Bergstedt, Annett Bartsch, Stefan Kruse, Victoria Miles, Cemal Melih Taniş, Birgit Heim, Matthias Fuchs, Sabine Chabrillat, Iuliia Shevtsova, Mariana Verdonen, Johann Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing of Environment · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020European Commission
KeywordsTundraRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)PermafrostEnvironmental scienceArcticNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexComparabilityArctic vegetationClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementPhysical geographyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review and inventory of recent research relating to optical remote sensing of Arctic vegetation was conducted, and thematic and geographical trends were summarized. Research was broadly categorized into four major themes of (1) time series, including NDVI trends and shrub expansion; (2) disturbance and recovery, including tundra fires, winter warming, herbivory, permafrost disturbance, and anthropogenic change; (3) vegetation properties, including biomass, primary productivity, seasonality, phenology, and pigments; and (4) classification and mapping. Remaining challenges associated with remote sensing of Arctic vegetation were divided into three categories and discussed. The first are issues related to environmental controls including disturbance, hydrology, plant functional types, phenology and the tundra-taiga ecotone, and understanding their influence on interpretation and validation of derived remote sensing trends. The second are issues of upscaling and extrapolation related to sensor physics and the comparability of data from multiple spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions. The final category identifies more philosophical challenges surrounding the future of data accessibility, big data analysis, sharing and funding policies among major data providers such as national space agencies and private companies, as well as user groups in the public and private sectors. The review concludes that the best practices for the advancement of optical remote sensing of Arctic vegetation include (1) a continued effort to share and improve in situ-validated datasets using camera networks and small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, (2) data fusion with non-optical data, (3) sensor continuity, consistency, and comparability, and (4) free availability and increased sharing of data. These efforts are necessary to generate high quality, temporally dense datasets for identifying trends in Arctic tundra vegetation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations208
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote Sensing of EnvironmentSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207