MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

FIRE SEVERITY ASSESSMENT OF AN ALPINE FOREST FIRE WITH SENTINEL-2 IMAGERY

2022· article· en· W4281705652 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte Leblon, F. Ogunjobi Oluwamuyiwa, Emanuele Lingua, A. LaRocque

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestEnvironmental scienceSatellite imageryRemote sensingDigital elevation modelDecision treeVegetation (pathology)Physical geographyGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Fire is a common phenomenon in many forests and is considered an important ecological tool. Fire severity mapping presents an effective way to assess post-fire management intervention and is helpful in environmental and climate change research. The objective of this study was to determine the severity of a forest fire event that occurred from 24th to 27th October 2019 at Taibon Agordino using Sentinel-2A satellite images and creating a severity map suitable as a decision-making tool for post-fire management intervention. The Sentinel-2A satellite data was classified into the following five classes: Unburned, Low Severity, Moderate Severity, High Severity, and Shadow with the non-parametric Random Forest (RF) classifier, and the resulting classified image was validated using validation sites. The RF classifier was applied first to the ten original band reflectance of Sentinel-2. In a second step, additional variables were added to the classification, namely the digital elevation model (DEM), the slope, and five vegetation indices (i.e., Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR), Relative Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR), Differenced Bare Soil Index (dBSI), Global Environmental Monitoring Index (GEMI) and Burn Area Index (BAI)) The inclusion of vegetation indices and DEM-related variables increased the classification accuracy from 99.26% to 99.61% and the overall accuracy from 70.51% to 83.33%. In the classification with the ten original band reflectance, the variable of importance plot ranked the Red-Edge-3, Red, and SWIR 1 band reflectance as the top three most important input features, while for the classification with 17 variables, RdNBR, DEM and dNBR were the top three most important input features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→