MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W359289680 · doi:10.15094/00006171

Forest cover classification using Landsat Thematic Mapper data for areal expansion of line LAI estimate generated through airborne laser profiler

2001· article· en· W359289680 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic MapperRemote sensingCover (algebra)Thematic mapForest coverEnvironmental scienceLine (geometry)GeographyCartographySatellite imageryMathematicsEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple cover classification of Canadian boreal forest was conducted using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery to expand a line estimate of leaf area index (LAI) into a two-dimensional regional one. The line estimate had been made through a 600km long continuous vegetation profile obtained by airborne laser altimetry. The present study area of 170×30km straddles the central portion of the laser profiling transect, from Wandering River north to Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. A total of eight land cover types were identified first in the field, and then some 83 training points and another 74 reference points were chosen and recorded for a supervised classification and its accuracy assessment respectively. By applying a supervised procedure to Landsat TM data in two different seasons, these eight cover types, consisting of six vegetated covers, i. e. closed and open conifer forests, conifer woodland, closed and open broad-leaved forests and marsh thicket, and two nonvegetated covers, i. e. bare ground and water surface, were classified. The classification was basically successful with an overall accuracy of 76%. Finally, using an overlay of this land cover map and the airborne laser profiling flight track, the mean LAI for each type of vegetation cover was obtained, and subsequently fed back to the land cover map to form a false-color map showing the two-dimensional distribution of LAI over the entire study area.

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.

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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.242 · 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