MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367598994 · doi:10.3390/rs15092381

Improving LandTrendr Forest Disturbance Mapping in China Using Multi-Season Observations and Multispectral Indices

2023· article· en· W4367598994 on OpenAlexaff
Dean Qiu, Yunjian Liang, Rong Shang, Jing M. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFujian Normal UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Fujian ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceMultispectral imageChinaRemote sensingGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest disturbance detection is of great significance for understanding forest dynamics. The Landsat-based detection of the Trends in Disturbance and Recovery (LandTrendr) algorithm is widely used for forest disturbance mapping. However, there are still two limitations in LandTrendr: first, it only used for summer-composited observations, which may delay the detection of forest disturbances that occurred in autumn and winter by one year, and second, it detected all disturbance types simultaneously using a single spectral index, which may reduce the mapping accuracy for certain forest disturbance types. Here, we modified LandTrendr (mLandTrendr) for forest disturbance mapping in China by using multi-season observations and multispectral indices. Validations using the randomly selected 1957 reference forest disturbance samples across China showed that the overall accuracy (F1 score) of forest disturbance detection in China was improved by 21% with these two modifications. The mLandTrendr can quickly and accurately detect forest disturbance and can be extended to national and global forest disturbance mapping for various forest types.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207