Active Collection of Land Cover Sample Data from Geo-Tagged Web Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample data plays an important role in land cover (LC) map validation. Traditionally, they are collected through field survey or image interpretation, either of which is costly, labor-intensive and time-consuming. In recent years, massive geo-tagged texts are emerging on the web and they contain valuable information for LC map validation. However, this kind of special textual data has seldom been analyzed and used for supporting LC map validation. This paper examines the potential of geo-tagged web texts as a new cost-free sample data source to assist LC map validation and proposes an active data collection approach. The proposed approach uses a customized deep web crawler to search for geo-tagged web texts based on land cover-related keywords and string-based rules matching. A data transformation based on buffer analysis is then performed to convert the collected web texts into LC sample data. Using three provinces and three municipalities directly under the Central Government in China as study areas, geo-tagged web texts were collected to validate artificial surface class of China’s 30-meter global land cover datasets (GlobeLand30-2010). A total of 6283 geo-tagged web texts were collected at a speed of 0.58 texts per second. The collected texts about built-up areas were transformed into sample data. User’s accuracy of 82.2% was achieved, which is close to that derived from formal expert validation. The preliminary results show that geo-tagged web texts are valuable ancillary data for LC map validation and the proposed approach can improve the efficiency of sample data collection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".