How reliable are remote sensing maps calibrated over large areas? A matter of scale?
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".