MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2010312225 · doi:10.1139/x06-244

A method for estimation of a land-cover change matrix from error-prone unit-level observations

2007· article· en· W2010312225 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Steen Magnussen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelDiagonalChange detectionLand coverStatisticsMathematicsIndependence (probability theory)Computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceLand useEcologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coregistration and classification errors can seriously compromise direct unit-level (pixel) estimation of land-cover change from remotely sensed data. A more robust alternative to a pixel-based estimation of change is warranted. In a proposed method, spatially adjacent pixels are grouped into 3 × 3 clusters, and the change matrix is obtained from cluster-specific and land cover specific pixel counts at two points in time. The diagonal of a change matrix is estimated by combining an estimate of the temporal correlation of cover type specific, cluster-level counts with an estimate of the odds ratio of no change. Off-diagonal elements are least-squares solutions to a set of linear constraints or obtained by iterative proportional fitting under a model of quasi-independence. In a study with data from five sites, the proposed method produced less biased estimates on three sites if the mean coregistration error was in excess of 0.3–0.7 pixels and on four sites if classification accuracy dropped below 0.9.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→