MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385774170 · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2023.103452

Better monitoring of forests according to FAO’s definitions through map integration: Significance and limitations in the context of global environmental goals

2023· article· en· W4385774170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Alan Johnson, Chisa Umemiya, Damasa B. Magcale-Macandog, Ronald C. Estoque, Masato Hayashi, Takeo Tadono

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation Agency
KeywordsGeographyThematic mapLand coverEnvironmental resource managementContext (archaeology)AgricultureGlobal MapLand useAgricultural landForestryCartographyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National monitoring of forests is essential for tracking progress towards various global environmental goals, including those of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement. Inconsistent national definitions of “forest”, however, can complicate the tracking of global progress towards achieving these goals. The FAO’s (Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN) definition of “Forest” is well-known and broad enough to be applicable globally, but it is difficult for countries to produce national forest maps according to this definition using only a single source of remote sensing data. Here, we developed an approach to integrate multiple existing land use/land cover (LULC) maps and generate an integrated map of forests and “Other land with tree cover” that is more consistent with FAO definitions. The proposed approach is based on merging thematic information from the global “PALSAR-2 Forest/Non-forest map”, a global forest/non-forest map, with that of a national map containing more detailed LULC classes. By applying the map integration approach at the national level in the Philippines as a case study, we identified 5.937 ± 0.217 Mha of “Missing forest” that were not included in the country’s national LULC map, mainly forest patches in areas that were predominantly “Brush/shrub”, “Grassland”, or “Marshland/swamp” lands. We also identified 4.294 ± 0.258 Mha of land corresponding to FAO’s definition of “Other land with tree cover” that were previously unmapped; specifically, patches of tree cover on predominantly agricultural and urban lands. Based on these additional areas of “Forest” and “Other land with tree cover” identified, we further estimated an additional 145,480 GgCO2/year of carbon sinks. Our approach is generalizable enough to potentially be applied in other countries for more standardized forest and ecosystem services 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207