Meta-Analysis of Wetland Classification Using Remote Sensing: A Systematic Review of a 40-Year Trend in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North America is covered in 2.5 million km2 of wetlands, which is the remainder of an estimated 56% of wetlands lost since the 1700s. This loss has resulted in a decrease in important habitat and services of great ecological, economic, and recreational benefits to humankind. To better manage these ecosystems, since the 1970s, wetlands in North America have been classified with increasing regularity using remote sensing technology. Since then, optimal methods for wetland classification by numerous researchers have been examined, assessed, modified, and established. Over the past several decades, a large number of studies have investigated the effects of different remote sensing factors, such as data type, spatial resolution, feature selection, classification methods, and other parameters of interest on wetland classification in North America. However, the results of these studies have not yet been synthesized to determine best practices and to establish avenues for future research. This paper reviews the last 40 years of research and development on North American wetland classification through remote sensing methods. A meta-analysis of 157 relevant articles published since 1980 summarizes trends in 23 parameters, including publication, year, study location, application of specific sensors, and classification methods. This paper also examines is the relationship between several remote sensing parameters (e.g., spatial resolution and type of data) and resulting overall accuracies. Finally, this paper discusses the future of remote sensing of wetlands in North America with regard to upcoming technologies and sensors. Given the increasing importance and vulnerability of wetland ecosystems under the climate change influences, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive review in support of the continued, improved, and novel applications of remote sensing for wetland mapping across North America and to provide a fundamental knowledge base for future studies in this field.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".