MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2030999971 · doi:10.1117/12.812725

Sensitivity of Landsat MSS and TM to land cover change in the Golden Horseshoe, Ontario, Canada

2008· article· en· W2030999971 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie FitzGibbon, Dongmei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange detectionRemote sensingLand coverEnvironmental scienceImage resolutionGeographyComputer scienceLand useComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ideal situation for conducting change detection is to use multi-temporal images acquired from the same sensor. However, many conditions (such as the discontinuity of sensors, weather conditions) would bring an end to the ideal temporal change detection. Imagery availability issues will force change detection studies in the future to increasingly incorporate multiple sensors. This study conducted change detection between Landsat TM (TM) and Landsat MSS (MSS) images from July 30, 1995 to June 2, 2003. The study area was centered on the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in south-central Ontario, Canada. Post-classification change detection was used to determine the type of change between the images. Results demonstrated that despite the different spatial resolution of the MSS and TM data, the change detection using both MSS and TM was similar in results to that of TM alone. A change detection where MSS is resampled to 30 meters was most effective in capturing the amount and type of change in the TM change study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→