Deciphering the many maps of the Xingu River Basin – an assessment of land cover classifications at multiple scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing is an invaluable tool to objectively illustrate the rapid decline in habitat extents worldwide. The many operational Earth Observation platforms provide options for the generation of land cover maps, each with unique characteristics and considerable semantic differences in the definition of classes. As a result, differences in baseline estimates are inevitable. Here we compare forest cover and surface water estimates over four time periods spanning three decades (1989–2018) for ∼1.3 million km2 encompassing the Xingu River Basin, Brazil, from published, freely accessible remotely sensed land cover classifications. While all showed a decrease in forest extent over time, the total deforested area reported by each ranged widely for all time periods. The greatest differences ranged from 9% to 17% (116,958 to 219,778 km2) deforestation of the total area for year 2000 and 2014–2018 time period, respectively. We also show the high sensitivity of forest fragmentation metrics (entropy and foreground area density) to data quality and spatial resolution, with cloud cover and sensor artefacts resulting in errors. Surface water classifications must be chosen carefully because sources differ greatly in location and mapped area of surface water. After operationalization of the Belo Monte dam complex, the large reservoirs are notably absent from several of the classifications illustrating land cover. Freshwater ecosystem health is influenced by the land cover surrounding water bodies (e.g., riparian zones). Understanding differences between the many remotely sensed baselines is fundamentally important to avoid information misuse, and to objectively choose the most appropriate classification for ecological studies, conservation, or policy making. The differences between the classifications examined here are not a failure of the technology, but due to different interpretations of ‘forest cover’ and characteristics of the input data (e.g., spatial resolution). Our findings demonstrate the importance of transparency in the generation of remotely sensed classifications and the need for users to familiarize themselves with the characteristics and limitations of each data set.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".