MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401662388 · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2024.104098

Post-wildfire boreal forest vegetation cover change mapping via information fusion for secondary disaster risk assessments

2024· article· en· W4401662388 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ying Zhang, Julie Lovitt, Maxim Fortin, Haoyu Fang, Sylvain G. Leblanc, Francis Canisius

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsGeographyVegetation (pathology)TaigaBorealLand coverForestryRemote sensingPhysical geographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceCartographyEcologyLand use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-wildfire vegetation cover damage and loss can escalate the risks of secondary disasters such as flood, landslide, and water contamination, particularly in a major wildfire affected region where human settlements are situated. In assessments of the secondary disaster risks, the post-wildfire vegetation cover change plays a key role in influencing the distribution and intensity of the risks. In this work, a processing framework for mapping post-wildfire vegetation cover changes through information fusion has been generated and tested using Landsat8 and WorldView imagery data. The test site was the boreal forest region surrounding Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, affected by a massive wildfire in May 2016. The derived map results indicate that the fusion process in the framework is effective for generation of post-wildfire vegetation cover change information. The use of WorldView data revealed more variation details in distribution of the vegetation cover burn damages than use of Landsat data. Moreover, the uncertainty in vegetation burn severity using Landsat-based Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) index exists in the areas with low dNBR reading values due to the sub-pixel effect. The forest burn severity measured with dNBR index can be underestimated due to the quick herbaceous cover recovery after wildfire. These uncertainties in the post-wildfire vegetation cover mapping should be taken into consideration when the derived information is being used for risk assessments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207