MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037605429 · doi:10.3390/rs12122056

Forest Potential Productivity Mapping by Linking Remote-Sensing-Derived Metrics to Site Variables

2020· article· en· W3037605429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Parinaz Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran, Chris R. Hennigar, Aaron R. Weiskittel, Sean Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureMaine Agricultural and Forest Experiment StationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceProductivitySite indexVegetation (pathology)Physical geographyForest inventoryBiomass (ecology)Scale (ratio)Remote sensingForestryForest managementHydrology (agriculture)GeographyAgroforestryCartographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fine-resolution region-wide map of forest site productivity is an essential need for effective large-scale forestry planning and management. In this study, we incorporated Sentinel-2 satellite data into an increment-based measure of forest productivity (biomass growth index (BGI)) derived from climate, lithology, soils, and topographic metrics to map improved BGI (iBGI) in parts of North American Acadian regions. Initially, several Sentinel-2 variables including nine single spectral bands and 12 spectral vegetation indices (SVIs) were used in combination with forest management variables to predict tree volume/ha and height using Random Forest. The results showed a 10–12 % increase in out of bag (OOB) r2 when Sentinel-2 variables were included in the prediction of both volume and height together with BGI. Later, selected Sentinel-2 variables were used for biomass growth prediction in Maine, USA and New Brunswick, Canada using data from 7738 provincial permanent sample plots. The Sentinel-2 red-edge position (S2REP) index was identified as the most important variable over others to have known influence on site productivity. While a slight improvement in the iBGI accuracy occurred compared to the base BGI model (~2%), substantial changes to coefficients of other variables were evident and some site variables became less important when S2REP was included.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207