Canada Landsat Disturbance (CanLaD): a Canada-wide Landsat-based 30-m resolution product of fire and harvest detection and attribution since 1984
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data publication contains a set of files in which areas affected by fire or by harvest from 1984 to 2015 are identified at the level of individual 30m pixels on the Landsat grid. Details of the product development can be found in Guindon et al (2018). The change detection is based on reflectance-corrected yearly summer (July and August) Landsat mosaics from 1984 to 2015 created from individual scenes developed from USGS reflectance products (Masek et al, 2006; Vermote et al, 2006). Briefly, the change detection method uses a six-year temporal signature centered on the disturbance year to identify fire, harvest and no change. The signatures were derived from visually-interpreted disturbance or no-change polygons that were used to fit a decision tree model. The method detects about 91% of the areas harvested and 85% of the areas burned across Canada’s forests over the study period, but overestimates areas disturbed in the two initial and mostly in the two final years of the 1985 to 2015 time series. This is caused by the absence of appropriate pre-disturbance and post-disturbance data for the model-based detection and attribution. Disturbance coverage in those four years should therefore be used with caution. As in Guindon et al (2014), the method was designed to minimize commission errors and has a disturbance class attribution success rate of about 98%. The attribution success rate of disturbance year for fire is of about 69% for the exact year and of about 99% when attribution to the following year is also considered as a success. This common one-year lag is mostly due to the use of mid-summer Landsat mosaics for the analysis that will cause spring and fall events of the same year to be attributed to successive years. For example, a fire that occurred in the fall of 2004 (after July and August), will be detected and attributed to 2005, while for a fire that occurred in the spring of 2004 will be detected and attributed to 2004. The presence of clouds and shadows or image availability causes 10% of missing data annually and therefore can too delay the capture of events. The data provides uniform spatial and temporal information on fire and harvest across all provinces and territories of Canada and is intended for strategic-level analysis. Since no attention was given to other minor disturbances such as mining, road or flooding, the product should not be used for their identification. Finally, calibration datasets were developed for only three major forest pests (mountain pine beetle, eastern spruce budworm and forest tent caterpillar), but were folded within the “no-change” class in order to minimize commission errors for fire and harvest . Less common pests for which validation datasets are hard to develop were not considered and therefore could in rare circumstances generate false fire events. Considering that area having two (3.3%) to three disturbances (less than 1%) events are not common, only the most recent disturbance is provided, overlapping older disturbances in these rare case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".