Use of Landsat Imagery Time-Series and Random Forests Classifier to Reconstruct Eelgrass Bed Distribution Maps in Eeyou Istchee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The eastern coastline of James Bay is known to have been home to sizeable eelgrass beds (Zostera marina L.) which thrived in the bay’s shallow, subarctic waters. The region was subjected to substantial hydroelectric dams, large fires, and other human activities in the past half-century. To assess the impact of these factors on eelgrass beds, a historical reconstruction of eelgrass bed distribution was performed from images acquired by Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper (TM) in 1988, 1991, and 1996 and images of the Landsat-8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) in 2019. All the images were classified using the Random Forests classifier (RF) and assessed for accuracy each year on a bay-wide scale using an independent field validation dataset. The validation data were extracted from an eelgrass bed map established using aerial photos and field surveys in 1986, 1991, and 1995 and from a field survey in 2019. The overall validation accuracy of the classified images (between 72% and 85%) showed good agreement with the other datasets for most locations, providing reassurance about the reliability of the research. This makes it possible to use satellite imagery to detect past changes to eelgrass distribution within a bay. The classified images of 1988 and 1996 were also compared to aerial photos taken in years close to each other at ten sites to determine their ability to assess small eelgrass beds’ shape and presence. Such a comparison revealed that the classified images accurately portrayed eelgrass distribution even at finer scales.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".