MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416998102 · doi:10.3390/rs17233927

Assessing Surface Water Dynamics of Wetlands in Reclaimed Mining Areas in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta, Canada, with Time-Varying Sentinel-1 SAR and Sentinel-2 Multi-Spectral Imagery

2025· article· en· W4416998102 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erik Biederstadt, Faramarz Samavati, Elizabeth A. L. Gillis, Jan J. H. Ciborowski

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada's Oil Sands Innovation AllianceAlberta InnovatesCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsWetlandLand reclamationHydrology (agriculture)Oil sandsSpatial variabilitySurface water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetlands provide critical ecological and socio-economic benefits, covering approximately 45% of the Athabasca Oil Sands Region in Alberta, Canada. However, open-pit oil sand mining has led to widespread wetland loss. While reclamation efforts are ongoing, the development of effective wetland monitoring methods remain essential. This paper presents a novel approach to tracking wetland dynamics in reclaimed and reference landscapes using Sentinel-1 SAR and Sentinel-2 multispectral imagery. We assess surface water extent and emergent vegetation, validating our satellite-based measurements against high-resolution UAV-derived wetland area data (R2=0.902). Our results reveal minor differences in intra-annual variability in wetland area between wetlands in reclaimed versus those in reference landscapes. Wetlands exhibit a positive log-linear relationship between maximum depth and variability in open-water area, a pattern that was consistent between landscape types. Intra- and interannual variability in spatial extent were both positively associated with wetland area. This paper introduces the first ground-truthed automated wetland monitoring approach for the region. These findings document the similarities in range of variation between wetlands developing in reclaimed and reference landscapes and provide a simple tool to support long-term monitoring to document the persistence of wetlands forming in reclaimed landscapes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207