MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963705011 · doi:10.25316/ir-18210

Using remote sensing imagery to map and quantify aspen mortality in NW Alberta

2023· article· en· W6963705011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerial imageryDeciduousWildlifeDisturbance (geology)Aerial photographyAerial surveyHabitatForest health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land managers and researchers have documented a rapid decline in aspen health in western North America since the early 2000s, which has been linked to drought episodes combined with caterpillar defoliation outbreaks. As the most abundant commercial deciduous tree species in Alberta, aspen serves many functions in Alberta forests, including providing forage and habitat for many wildlife species, water cycling and conservation, carbon sequestration, and wood fibre. Aspen mortality first became apparent in northwest Alberta in the late 2000s, and aerial surveyors began mapping it in 2011. Because of its clumpy, dispersed distribution within stands, this is a difficult forest health disturbance to accurately map. The Grande Prairie Forest area in northwest Alberta was chosen as the study area for this research project because it has the highest aspen mortality rate in the province. The procedures developed for this area are intended to be used in other Alberta Forest areas that have only recently begun to see and map aspen mortality. The goal of this research project was to map and categorise the current amount of aspen mortality in the Grande Prairie Forest area into the three mortality classes currently used by aerial surveyors in Alberta using remote sensing imagery. Using Landsat 8 OLI imagery, this project evaluated automated image classification methods to delineate and quantify mortality. Classification algorithms used in this project were Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Maximum Likelihood (ML), and ISO Data. A confusion matrix was used to compare overall accuracies as well as misclassifications. Both SVM and RF had similar acceptable accuracies with F1-scores of 79.4% and 78.4 respectively. The resulting categorized mortality map is to be used by land managers to focus detailed ground surveys and aid in forest management planning to ensure sufficient regeneration of stands experiencing high mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University)Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207