MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394040522 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3689194

Monitoring clearcutting and subsequent rapid recovery in Mediterranean coppice forests with Landsat time series

2020· dataset· en· W4394040522 on OpenAlexaff
Gherardo Chirici, Francesca Giannetti, Erika Mazza, Saverio Francini, Davide Travaglini, R. Pegna, Joanne C. White

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClearcuttingCoppicingSeries (stratigraphy)Mediterranean climateForestryLoggingEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeographyGeologyEcologyArchaeologyWoody plantBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset considers information from clear-cut coppice forest occurred between 1999 and 2015 in three different area of Tuscany Region (Italy). The dataset consists in one shape file and two csv files. The shape file contains in 2371 spatial polygons of clear-cut occurred in the three area between 1999 and 2015. The polygons were generated using visual interpretation of the Landsat Time Series and high resolution regional ortomosaic. Photo interpreters delineated the spatial extent of each clear-cut and recorded the year of harvest, adopting a minimum mapping unit of 0.1 hectares. The database associated with shape file report information related with area extent of clear-cut, year of clear-cut and the forest types that is associated with the clear-cut derived by the Tucant Regional Forest Inventory (RFI) data that give information on dominant species. The .csv files reported the temporal characteristic of clear-cut based on Landsat Time Series data and based on Airborne Laser Scanner (ALS) Canopy Height Model (CHM), in order to describe the temporal trend of clear-cut based on remote sensing data.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207