MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195754329 · doi:10.3390/rs13163219

Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Structure—Part 2: Initial Findings of Ecosystem Functioning through Intra- and Inter-Annual Comparisons with Earth Observation Data

2021· article· en· W3195754329 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel L. Peters, K. Olaf Niemann, Robert Skelly

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePhotosynthetically active radiationWetlandEcosystemFlooding (psychology)Remote sensingLeaf area indexClimatologyPhysical geographyGeologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the response of a cold-regions deltaic wetland ecosystem in northwestern Canada to two separate and differing seasonal wetting cycles. The goal of this paper was to examine the nature of reflected electromagnetic energy measured by earth observation (EO) satellites, and to assess whether seasonal wetland hydroperiod and episodic flooding events impact the information retrieved by the Sentinel-2 sensors. The year 2018 represents a year characterized by a large spring freshet and ice-jam flooding, while 2019 represents a year characterized more by summer open-water flooding. We applied the Modified Normalized Difference Wetness Index (MNDWI) to address the effects of the wetting cycles. The response of the vegetative cover was tracked using the fraction of the absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) and the Leaf Area Index (LAI). All three indices were viewed through the lens of cover classes as derived through a previously published study by the authors. The study provides a framework for designing longer-term studies where multiple intra- and inter-annual hydrological cycles can be accessed via EO data. Future studies will enable the examination of lag times inherent in the response to the various water sources applied to spectral response and incorporate this EO approach into a monitoring framework.

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 score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207