MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019670949 · doi:10.1109/icbmei.2011.5916951

The level of cultivated land security risk in China based on the PNN network

2011· article· en· W2019670949 on OpenAlexaff
Chunhua Li, Ning Li, Nawei Wang, Jason Levy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivated landChinaVulnerability (computing)Food securityGeographyOrder (exchange)BusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceAgricultureComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, cultivated land areas throughout China are differentially susceptible to a variety of natural hazards, social risks, and economic challenges. A risk evaluation model is developed in order to capture the degree of risk to the quality of cultivated land and cultivated land areas in China. Based on the Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN), the model seeks to provide insights/recommendations on the use of cultivated land in China, by employing a set of environmental indicators. Threshold risk levels are established in order to reduce the vulnerability of cultivated lands. Five cultivated land area risk categories are defined. It is shown that more resources should be dedicated to protecting the environment and cultivated land areas in China. By reducing the risk of natural hazards and socio-economic pressures, it is expected that the quality of cultivated land in China can be improved. Finally, regions primarily dedicated to food production should be given additional protection from natural and anthropogenic risks.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207