MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499501553 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2015.1047140

Spatio-temporal changes in oases in the Heihe River Basin of China: 1963–2013

2015· article· en· W1499501553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaowen Xie, Hong Zhao, Guisheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChinaGeographyPhysical geographyPeriod (music)Structural basinUrban sprawlAridPopulationHydrology (agriculture)EcologyLand useGeologyDemographyGeomorphologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial oases have flourished as human activities have intensified. Changes in oases in the Heihe River Basin are typical for the arid areas of China. Based on images from 14 separate periods during 1963–2013 that were compiled from multi-sensors, data on the boundaries of oases were extracted using the methods of object-oriented image segmentation and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index thresholds as well as visual interpretation. Based on extracted data, the spatio-temporal changes in oases were analyzed using models i.e. grid transformed model for rate of change. The drivers were analyzed based on data from Statistics Yearbooks and field surveys. The results show that from 1963 to 2013 sprawl dominated oasis evolution and occurred not only in the surroundings but also in interior patches. Oasis evolution patterns of “unchanged,” “expanding,” “shrinking” and “oscillating” were observed. The development exhibited three stages, the unstable (1963–1980), the steady development (1980–2002) and the rapid expansion (2002–2013), which correspond to the Planned Economy Period, the Commodity Economy Period and the Market-oriented Economy Period, respectively, in China. Oasis expansion was mainly determined by the human instincts for survival and for human well-being and was governed by population growth, agricultural policies and economic development.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207