MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126324944 · doi:10.3390/rs13040599

Multi-Source EO for Dynamic Wetland Mapping and Monitoring in the Great Lakes Basin

2021· article· en· W3126324944 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Battaglia, Sarah Banks, Amir Behnamian, Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez, Brian Brisco, Jennifer Corcoran, Zhaohua Chen, Brian Huberty, James Klassen, Joseph Knight, Paul Morin, Kevin Murnaghan, Keith C. Pelletier, Lori White

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsWetlandEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementStructural basinRemote sensingEnvironmental monitoringConstellationVegetation (pathology)Hydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementGeographyEcologyGeologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetland managers, citizens and government leaders are observing rapid changes in coastal wetlands and associated habitats around the Great Lakes Basin due to human activity and climate variability. SAR and optical satellite sensors offer cost effective management tools that can be used to monitor wetlands over time, covering large areas like the Great Lakes and providing information to those making management and policy decisions. In this paper we describe ongoing efforts to monitor dynamic changes in wetland vegetation, surface water extent, and water level change. Included are assessments of simulated Radarsat Constellation Mission data to determine feasibility of continued monitoring into the future. Results show that integration of data from multiple sensors is most effective for monitoring coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes region. While products developed using methods described in this article provide valuable management tools, more effort is needed to reach the goal of establishing a dynamic, near-real-time, remote sensing-based monitoring program for the basin.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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