MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214950806 · doi:10.3390/rs13234745

Satellite Time Series and Google Earth Engine Democratize the Process of Forest-Recovery Monitoring over Large Areas

2021· article· en· W3214950806 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer N. Hird, Jahan Kariyeva, Gregory J. McDermid

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWorkflowSatelliteRemote sensingMeteorologyComputer scienceEarth observationEnvironmental resource managementGeographyDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary forest-health initiatives require technologies and workflows that can monitor forest degradation and recovery simply and efficiently over large areas. Spectral recovery analysis—the examination of spectral trajectories in satellite time series—can help democratize this process, particularly when performed with cloud computing and open-access satellite archives. We used the Landsat archive and Google Earth Engine (GEE) to track spectral recovery across more than 57,000 forest harvest areas in the Canadian province of Alberta. We analyzed changes in the normalized burn ratio (NBR) to document a variety of recovery metrics, including year of harvest, percent recovery after five years, number of years required to achieve 80% of pre-disturbance NBR, and % recovery the end of our monitoring window (2018). We found harvest areas in Alberta to recover an average of 59.9% of their pre-harvest NBR after five years. The mean number of years required to achieve 80% recovery in the province was 8.7 years. We observed significant variability in pre- and post-harvest spectral recovery both regionally and locally, demonstrating the importance of climate, elevation, and complex local factors on rates of spectral recovery. These findings are comparable to those reported in other studies and demonstrate the potential for our workflow to support broad-scale management and research objectives in a manner that is complimentary to existing information sources. Measures of spectral recovery for all 57,979 harvest areas in our analysis are freely available and browseable via a custom GEE visualization tool, further demonstrating the accessibility of this information to stakeholders and interested members of the public.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207