MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154153416 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.14722

Using variations in High Arctic vegetation spectral properties to predict various types of plant, soil, and environmental variables.

2021· article· en· W3154153416 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sandra Yaacoub

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArcticHyperspectral imagingVegetation (pathology)Arctic vegetationTundraGrowing seasonProductivityPrimary productionRemote sensingEcosystemPhysical geographyAtmospheric sciencesEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In comparison to other regions, the High Arctic is experiencing accelerated rates of warming (Meredith et al., 2019). Hyperspectral remote sensing may provide a way to monitor changes in productivity without having to make detailed ground-based measurements. During the 2017 field season researchers on Melville Island, Nunavut, collected in-situ hyperspectral data, plant nutrient concentrations, carbon dioxide gas exchange measurements, and various environmental parameters in a wet-sedge tundra environment. These data were processed with the overall objective of determining if spectral information may be used to quantify changes in productivity across the High Arctic. Using a random forest machine learning algorithm, wavelengths from the hyperspectral data were identified for use in nine vegetation indices (VIs) based on relationships to foliar nitrogen concentrations. Using linear regressions, these VIs were compared to the environmental parameters. Although none correlated significantly to foliar nitrogen, three VIs showed p-values < 0.05 (alpha = 0.05) consistently for the following variables: soil nitrate and ammonia concentrations, net ecosystem exchange (NEE), and gross primary productivity (GPP) values. This shows promise for the use of remote sensing techniques to aid in monitoring the High Arctic. Additional research within this field would help pave way towards increased certainty on the kinds of responses that are in store for these landscapes if warming is to continue at an accelerated rate. This may bring increased monitoring frequency and scale of environmental assessment across the High Arctic, granting communities influenced by warming additional tools to aid in safer regional navigation and improved emergency response preparedness. References Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M., Cassotta, S., Derksen, C., Ekaykin, A., Hollowed, A., Kofinas, G., Mackintosh, A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Muelbert, M. M. C. M. M. C., Ottersen, G., Pritchard, H., & Schuur, E. A. G. E. A. G. (2019). Polar Regions. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, & N. M. Weyer (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (pp. 203–320). https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-3-2/

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207