Leveraging machine learning and remote sensing to improve grassland inventory in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning algorithms have been widely adopted in the monitoring ecosystem. British Columbia suffers from grassland degradation but the province does not have an accurate spatial database for effective grassland management. Moreover, computational power and storage space remain two of the limiting factors in developing the database. In this study, we leverage supervised machine learning algorithms using the Google Earth Engine to better annual grassland inventory through an automated process. The pilot study was conducted over the Rocky Mountain district. We compared two different classification algorithms: the Random forest, and the Support vector machine. Training data was sampled through stratified and grided sampling. 19 predictor variables were chosen from Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imageries and relevant topological derivatives, spectral indices, and textural indices using a wrapper-based feature selection method. The resultant map was post-processed to remove land features that were confounded with grasslands. Random forest was chosen as the prototype because the algorithm predicted features relevant to the project’s scope at relatively higher accuracy (67% - 86%) than its counterparts (50% - 76%). The prototype was good at delineating the boundaries between treed and non-treed areas and ferreting out opened patches among closed forests. These opened patches are usually disregarded by the VRI but they are deemed essential to grassland stewardship and wildlife ecologists. The prototype demonstrated the feasibility of automating grassland delineation by a Random forest classifier using the Google Earth Engine. Furthermore, grassland stewards can use the product to identify monitoring and restoration areas strategically in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".