MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408445397 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-924

Tracking peatland recovery: insights from 20 years of satellite data

2025· preprint· en· W4408445397 on OpenAlexaffabout
Iuliia Burdun, Mari Myllymäki, Rebekka Artz, Mélina Guêné‐Nanchen, Leonas Jarašius, Ain Kull, Erik A. Lilleskov, Kevin McCullough, Māra Pakalne, Jiabin Pu, Jūratė Sendžikaitė, Līga Strazdiņa, Miina Rautiainen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatSatelliteTracking (education)Remote sensingEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringPsychologyAerospace engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restoring degraded peatlands is a key strategy for climate change mitigation. This has driven increased restoration efforts, especially in northern regions with widespread degradation. Continuous spatial monitoring is critical, and remote sensing enables it by providing large-scale data. In our study, we analyzed restoration-induced changes in essential climate variables across degraded northern peatlands in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the UK, Canada, and the USA. We hypothesized that, prior to restoration, degraded peatlands with different initial land cover types display more pronounced differences in essential climate variables compared to intact peatlands, but these differences diminish as restoration progresses. Using over 20 years of satellite data, we observed changes driven by restoration in vegetation cover, surface temperature, and albedo, with the latter two showing the strongest indications of peatlands gradually recovering their natural state over time.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→