MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244140087 · doi:10.4095/219898

Derivation of Land Cover Continuous Fields over Canada from SPOT-VGT Imagery

2002· report· en· W4244140087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Fernandes, R Latifovic, Robert Fraser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorLand coverRemote sensingInversion (geology)CalibrationPixelCover (algebra)Image resolutionEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeologyLand useArtificial intelligenceEcologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent comparisons of coarse (1 km) and fine (30m) resolution land cover maps across Canada indicate that single cover types rarely occupy more than 40% of a 1km pixel in forested areas. To address this aggregation problem we develop and apply a method for estimating continuous fields of vegetation structural characteristics using 1km resolution SPOT-VEGETATION (VGT) imagery. A sample of Landsat TM and ETM+ scenes stratified by ecozone is classified using a standard methodology to generate spatially distributed calibration centres. Neural networks, look-up-table labelling, and regression resulted in biases as large as 35% when calibrated using centers over 400km away. Only the linear least squares inversion approach produce a bias under 20%. An estimator based on a linear mixture model regularised by the <I>a prior</I> continuous field distribution over the calibration centres is developed. The regularisation parameter is defined by the spectral and spatial similarity of VGT reflectances between calibration centres and the regions being mapped. A strategy for mapping and validating Canada wide continuous fields using this method is described.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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)0.0140.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207