MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322503105 · doi:10.3390/rs15051276

A Multi-Satellite Mapping Framework for Floating Kelp Forests

2023· article· en· W4322503105 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lianna Gendall, Sarah Schroeder, Peter Wills, Margot Hessing‐Lewis, Maycira Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic ServiceUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTransport CanadaHakai InstituteFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMitacsParks Canada
KeywordsKelp forestKelpRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceSatellite imageryGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kelp forests provide key habitat on the Pacific Coast of Canada; however, the long-term changes in their distribution and abundance remain poorly understood. With advances in satellite technology, floating kelp forests can now be monitored across large-scale areas. We present a methodological framework using an object-based image analysis approach that enables the combination of imagery from multiple satellites at different spatial resolutions and temporal coverage, to map kelp forests with floating canopy through time. The framework comprises four steps: (1) compilation and quality assessment; (2) preprocessing; (3) an object-oriented classification; and (4) an accuracy assessment. Additionally, the impact of spatial resolution on the detectability of floating kelp forests is described. Overall, this workflow was successful in producing accurate maps of floating kelp forests, with global accuracy scores of between 88% and 94%. When comparing the impact of resolution on detectability, lower resolutions were less reliable at detecting small kelp forests in high slope areas. Based on the analysis, we suggest removing high slope areas (11.4%) from time series analyses using high- to medium-resolution satellite imagery and that error, in this case up to 7%, be considered when comparing imagery at different resolutions in low–mid slope areas through time.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207