MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385386937 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.130309

Identifying Burnt Areas in Forests and Land Fire Using Multitemporal Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR) Index on Sentinel-2 Satellite Imagery

2023· article· en· W4385386937 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdi Sukmono, Firman Hadi, Eko Widayanti, Arief Laila Nugraha, Nurhadi Bashit

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Diponegoro
KeywordsSatellite imageryEnvironmental scienceIndex (typography)SatelliteRemote sensingPhysical geographyGeologyGeographyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest and land fires are global disasters that pose a serious threat to society, particularly during the dry season.Sumatra Island, located in Indonesia, is one of the areas prone to forest and land fires.It causes thick smoke every year which has implications for health and flight activities.It also threatens the 18,931 endemic plant species on the Sumatra Island so this needs to be monitored continuously for mitigation and recovery.This study aims to identify areas of past forest and land fires to support it.In this study, burnt areas were identified by utilizing Normalized Burn Ration (NBR) index on Sentinel-2 Satellite imagery using thresholding method.It is calculated as the ratio between the near-infrared (NIR) and short-wave infrared (SWIR) wavelengths.Both are very sensitive to vegetation and bare land so NBR is very potential for identification of burnt areas using multitemporal techniques.The results of this study indicated that the highest accuracy was achieved using the µ-2σ threshold model of dNBR, with the highest accuracy rate of 81.56% for the February 2019 fires.The results of this study suggest that the thresholding method using the NBR index can be utilized to identify burnt areas effectively.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207