Analyzing Gradual Vegetation Changes in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region Using Landsat Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil sand mining in northern Alberta/Canada in the Athabasca region is a major intrusion into the otherwise pristine natural environment. The various types of oil sands mining, transport, and processing are causing large-scale discharge of pollutants. Accordingly, this study examined the gradual changes in the physically undisturbed vegetation, that occurred from 1984 to 2021 in the Athabasca oil sands monitoring region. First, the abrupt changes were masked out with the help of auxiliary and Landsat data. Subsequently, a normalized burn ratio Landsat time-series was applied to the LandTrendr algorithm on the Google Earth Engine. In order to interpret gradual changes, measurement criteria were used to describe vegetation development, vulnerability, and variability. In addition, the spatial and temporal relationship of these to oil sand opencast mines, processing facilities, and steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) mines was examined. The results showed that a major part of the vegetation in the Athabasca oil sand monitoring region underwent a positive development (65.9%). However, around the opencast mines a negative vegetation development and stability within a radius of 10 km could be observed. In the surroundings of processing facilities, the development and stability of vegetation was disturbed within a radius of 2 km. Thereby the analysis of land cover classes showed that deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forest are disproportionately affected. Conversely, no negative influences on neighboring vegetation could be detected around SAGD mines. The temporal analysis showed that vegetation disturbance was most pronounced between 1990 and 2000, but recovered in recent years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".