MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4249502454 · doi:10.4095/219977

Validation and calibration of Canada-wide coarse-resolution satellite burned area maps

2003· report· en· W4249502454 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Fraser, R J Hall, Robert J. Landry, T. J. Lynham, D. Raymond, Byeong-Hun Lee, Z Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic MapperEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingSatelliteVegetation (pathology)Image resolutionSampling (signal processing)Crown (dentistry)CalibrationSatellite imageryMeteorologyPhysical geographyGeographyMathematicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite-based mapping can provide a timely and efficient means of identifying burned vegetation at continental scales for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and its effects on the terrestrial carbon budget. In this study, we used a sample of 55 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) scenes distributed across Canada to validate and calibrate 1998 and 1999 national-level burned areas maps produced using coarse resolution (~ 1-km) SPOT VEGETATION and NOAA AVHRR imagery. Commission and omissions errors, based on fire events > 200 ha, were found to be small in the coarse resolution maps (4% and 1%, respectively). However, the coarse resolution burned area estimates were 72 percent larger than the crown fire burned area mapped at 30 m using Landsat TM (11,039 vs. 6,403 ha average area). This bias was attributed to spatial aggregation effects in which the coarse resolution product included the tree crown fire, partial burn, and unburned fractions of a pixel. A regression calibration model (R2=0.95, p< 0.0005, RMS=3,015 ha, n=155) based on a VGT/TM double sampling approach was derived to correct for the aggregation bias and to provide Canada-wide estimates of crown fire burned 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→