MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386070053 · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02439-x

Spatial and Temporal Availability of Cloud-free Optical Observations in the Tropics to Monitor Deforestation

2023· article· en· W4386070053 on OpenAlexafffund
Africa I. Flores-Anderson, Jeffrey A. Cardille, Khashayar Azad, Emil Cherrington, Yingtong Zhang, Sylvia Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversitySte. Anne's HospitalMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarshall Space Flight CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTropicsCloud computingDeforestation (computer science)Environmental scienceRemote sensingSatellite imageryMetadataComputer scienceDatabaseGeographyMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

State-of-the-art methodologies to monitor deforestation rely mostly on optical satellite observations. High-density optical time series can enable the detection of deforestation almost as soon as it occurs. However, deforestation monitoring in the tropics can be hindered by high cloud coverage, and thus the responsiveness of managers, enforcement agencies, and scientists. To understand the implications of cloud contamination in freely available optical data we analyzed combined time series from Landsat 7, 8, and Sentinel-2 over the tropics from 2017-2021. Datasets derived for each 30 m × 30 m of the 59.4 M km2 domain include a) number of cloud-free observations per year, b) maximum consecutive days without clear imagery within a year, and c) final date of the longest waiting period. The datasets reflect where and when data gaps in optical time series exist due to cloud contamination. Scripts to access and extend the datasets are shared and documented. The datasets can be used to prioritize areas where complementary observations, such as radar imagery, are needed for implementing effective deforestation alert systems.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207