MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989144380 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n4p151

Analysis of Agricultural Cultivation Based on a New Landscape Expansion Index: A Case Study in Guishui River Basin, China

2012· article· en· W1989144380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pengfei Wu, Huili Gong, Xiaojuan Li, Demin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon spatial patternUrban expansionSpatial ecologyScale (ratio)Structural basinChinaGeographyAgriculturePhysical geographyDrainage basinEcologyGeologyCartographyLand useGeomorphologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural cultivation is always a global hot topic in agricultural and environmental sciences. The process of agricultural cultivation in Guishui river basin, China from 1978 to 2009 was studied based on landscape ecology principles with six Landsat images. A new landscape expansion index (LEI) was proposed to quantitatively indicate expansion size of farmland patches, and identify their spatial expansion patterns (adjacent expansion pattern and external expansion pattern). The primary conclusions were as follows. First, the expansion patterns of most expanding farmland patches were adjacent expansion pattern for approximately 30 years, whereas the number of adjacent and external expansion pattern patches fluctuated. Second, the values of LEI primarily distributed in the interval of (-1,-0.8), demonstrating that the spatial expansion pattern of farmland patches were largely adjacent expansion pattern on a small scale. Third, values of LEI tended to decrease overall as the expansion scale of farmland was gradually reduced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207