MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing a GIS Cellular Automata Model of Land Use Change: Bayesian Networks, Influence Diagrams and Causality

2007· article· en· W2011341335 on OpenAlexaffabout
Verda Kocabas, Suzana Dragićević

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCellular automatonBayesian networkComputer scienceCausality (physics)Land use, land-use change and forestryData miningDiagramLand useGeographic information systemInfluence diagramBayesian probabilityTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeographyDecision treeCartographyEcologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cellular Automata (CA) models at present do not adequately take into account the relationship and interactions between variables. However, land use change is influenced by multiple variables and their relationships. The objective of this study is to develop a novel CA model within a geographic information system (GIS) that consists of Bayesian Network (BN) and Influence Diagram (ID) sub‐models. Further, the proposed model is intended to simplify the definition of parameter values, transition rules and model structure. Multiple GIS layers provide inputs and the CA defines the transition rules by running the two sub‐models. In the BN sub‐model, land use drivers are encoded with conditional probabilities extracted from historical data to represent inter‐dependencies between the drivers. Using the ID sub‐model, the decision of changing from one land use state to another is made based on utility theory. The model was applied to simulate future land use changes in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Canada from 2001 to 2031. The results indicate that the model is able to detect spatio‐temporal drivers and generate various scenarios of land use change making it a useful tool for exploring complex planning scenarios.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations54
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207