MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313251163 · doi:10.1029/2022ea002431

Mapping and Scaling of In Situ Above Ground Biomass to Regional Extent With SAR in the Great Slave Region

2022· article· en· W4313251163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Kraatz, Laura Bourgeau‐Chavez, Michael Battaglia, Andrew Poley, Paul Siqueira

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth and Space Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEarth Sciences DivisionAgricultural Research ServiceNuclear Safety and Security CommissionU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarEnvironmental scienceTerrainScale (ratio)Representativeness heuristicDigital elevation modelBiomass (ecology)MeteorologyGeologyCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global forests are increasingly threatened by disturbance events such as wildfire. Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) missions at L‐ (or P‐) band, such as the upcoming NASA ISRO SAR (NISAR), have great potential to advance global mapping of above‐ground biomass (AGB). AGB mapping with SAR is challenging due to lack of available L‐ or P‐ band data, and because SAR data are sensitive to confounding factors such as hydrology and terrain. This study uses recently collected AGB validation site data (AGBV) to produce a 1 ha biomass map about the Great Slave Lake in Canada using SAR data, and reports on NISAR's anticipated performance. This study addresses errors inherent to the representativeness of AGBVs with coarser grid/landscape scale processes by evaluating model performance as data are aggregated over increasingly larger areas (AOAs). Air and spaceborne SAR data were found to be interoperable after processing them according to analysis ready data specifications, improving data availability. Owing to poor model performance at two AGBVs, root‐mean‐square errors (RMSEs) were ∼60 Mg/ha, irrespective of AOA. When instead using NISAR's more lenient assessment criteria, RMSEs decreased to 32, 15, and 21 Mg/ha for the small (∼0.1 ha), medium (∼3.5 ha), and large (∼14 ha) AOA. Thus, AGB mapping in this region appears to benefit significantly from coarser data aggregations than to be used by NISAR's. This approach is practical for identifying a suitable scale of correspondence between the AGBV and SAR data and the landscape‐scale processes and can substantially improve AGB mapping accuracy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth and Space ScienceSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207