How reliable are remote sensing maps calibrated over large areas? A matter of scale?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing data are increasingly available and frequently used to produce forest attributes maps. The sampling strategy of the calibration plots may directly affect predictions and map qualities. The aim of this manuscript is to evaluate models transferability at different spatial scales according to the sampling efforts and the calibration domain of these models. Forest inventory plots from locals and regionals networks were used to calibrate randomForest (RF) models for stand basal area predictions. Auxiliary data from ALS flights and a Sentinel-2 image were used. Model transferability was assessed by comparing models developed over a given area and applied elsewhere. Performances were measured in terms of precision (RMSE and bias), coefficient of determination (R2) and the proportion of extrapolated predictions. Regional networks were also thinned to evaluate the effect of sampling efforts on models' performances. Local models showed large bias and extrapolation issues when applied elsewhere. Local issues of regional models were also observed, raising transferability and extrapolation concerns. An increase in sampling efforts was shown to reduce extrapolation issues. The outcoming results of this study underline the importance of considering models' validity domain while producing forest attribute maps, since their transferability is of crucial importance from a forest management perspective.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it