Mapping Grasslands in Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of Saskatchewan Using Big Remote Sensing Data and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate spatial distribution information of native, mixed, and tame grasslands is essential for maintaining ecosystem health in the Prairie. This research aimed to use the latest monitoring technology to assess the remaining grasslands in Saskatchewan’s mixed grassland ecoregion (MGE). The classification approach was based on 78 raster-based variables derived from big remote sensing data of multispectral optical space-borne sensors such as MODIS and Sentinel-2, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) space-borne sensors such as Sentinel-1. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used as a data dimensionality reduction technique to mitigate big data load and improve processing time. Random Forest (RF) was used in the classification process and incorporated the selected variables from 78 satellite-based layers and 2385 reference training points. Within the MGE, the overall accuracy of the classification was 90.2%. Native grassland had 98.20% of user’s accuracy and 88.40% producer’s accuracy, tame grassland had 81.4% user’s accuracy and 93.8% producer’s accuracy, whereas mixed grassland class had very low user’s accuracy (45.8%) and producer’s accuracy 82.83%. Approximately 3.46 million hectares (40.2%) of the MGE area are grasslands (33.9% native, 4% mixed, and 2.3% tame). This study establishes a novel analytical framework for reliable grassland mapping using big data, identifies future challenges, and provides valuable information for Saskatchewan and North America decision-makers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".