Differentiation of Six Grassland/Forage Types in Three Canadian Ecoregions Based on Spectral Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differentiation of grassland/forage types and accurate estimates of their location and extent are important for understanding their ecological processes and for applying appropriate management practices. We are aiming to reveal the different spectral characteristics of six grassland/forage land covers in three ecoregions located in the Canadian Prairies, based on field data and satellite images. Three spectral indices representing productivity (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)), moisture content (Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI)), and plant photosynthetic activity (Plant Senescence Reflectance Index (PSRI)) were used for comparison of means, comparison of coefficient of variation (CV), and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicated that different grassland types show distinguishable spectral characteristics in the Moist-Mixed and Mixed Ecoregions, while it was not possible to differentiate the classes in the Fescue Ecoregion. To further investigate the within-sites and between-sites heterogeneity, we calculated the CV in a 3 × 3 window and placed them in comparative triangles to demonstrate their potential separability. Results indicated that the triangles based on the CV offered greater class separability in the Fescue Ecoregion and in the Mixed Ecoregion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".