MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383998603 · doi:10.1007/s10661-023-11468-3

Assessment of pixel-oriented k-NN machine learning algorithm performance for the interannual remote sensing monitoring of eelgrass beds at the mouth of the Romaine

2023· review· en· W4383998603 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Lemieux, C. Lalumière, N. Fugaru, J.-P. Gilbert, A. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsCollège de MaisonneuveHydro-QuébecEnGlobe (Canada)
FundersHydro-Québec
KeywordsEnvironmental monitoringRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceEcotoxicologyPixelAlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEcologyGeologyEnvironmental engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eelgrass cover extent is among the most reliable indicators for measuring changes in coastal ecosystems. Eelgrass has colonized the mouth of the Romaine River and has become a part of environmental monitoring there since 2013. The presence of eelgrass in this area is an essential factor for the early detection of changes in the Romaine coastal ecosystem. This will act as a trigger for an appropriate environmental response to preserve ecosystem health. In this paper, a cost- and time-efficient workflow for such spatial monitoring is proposed using a pixel-oriented k-NN algorithm. It can then be applied to multiple modellers to efficiently map the eelgrass cover. Training data were collected to define key variables for segmentation and k-NN classification, providing greater edge detection for the presence of eelgrass. The study highlights that remote sensing and training data must be acquired under similar conditions, replicating methodologies for collecting data on the ground. Similar approaches must be used for the zonal statistic requirements of the monitoring area. This will allow a more accurate and reliable assessment of eelgrass beds over time. An overall accuracy of over 90% was achieved for eelgrass detection for each year of monitoring.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Monitoring and AssessmentSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207