Remote Sensing Application in Mountainous Environments: A Bibliographic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancement in remote sensing platforms, sensors, and technology has significantly improved the assessment of hard-to-access areas, such as mountains. Despite these improvements, Africa lags in terms of research work published. This is of great concern as the continent needs more research to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, this study applied a bibliometric analysis of the annual production of publications on the application of remote sensing methods in mountainous environments. In total, 3849 original articles between 1973 and 2021 were used, and the results indicate a steady growth in publications from 2004 (n = 26) to 2021 (n = 504). Considering the source journals, Remote Sensing was the top-ranked, with 453 total publications. The University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences was the highest-ranking affiliation, with 217 articles, and China produced the highest number of publications (n = 217). Keywords used between 1973 and 1997, such as “Canada”, “alps”, and “GIS”, metamorphosed into “remote sensing” between 1998 and 2021. This metamorphosis indicates a change in the areas of interest and an increase in the application of remote sensing methods. Most studies were conducted in the Global North countries, and a few were published in low-impact journals within the African continent. This study can help researchers and scholars better understand the progress and intellectual structure of the field and future research directions in the application of remote sensing methods in mountainous environments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.121 | 0.148 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".