MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052191396 · doi:10.1177/0037549709103510

Defining Transition Rules with Reinforcement Learning for Modeling Land Cover Change

2009· article· en· W2052191396 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Bone, Suzana Dragićević

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceLand coverReinforcement learningProbabilistic logicCover (algebra)Resource (disambiguation)Set (abstract data type)Geographic information systemVariety (cybernetics)Machine learningLand useNatural resource managementArtificial intelligenceNatural resourceGeographyRemote sensingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatio-temporal modeling provides the opportunity to simulate geographic processes of land use and land cover change (LUCC) by integrating geographic information systems (GIS) with various machine learning approaches to computing. Contemporary models are often developed using a training dataset to define a set of probabilistic transition rules that govern how a landscape changes over time. However, the use of training datasets can be problematic for spatio-temporal modeling, as they can limit the ability to incorporate system complexity and hinder the transferability of the model to different datasets. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a machine learning approach called reinforcement learning (RL) for defining transition rules for GIS-based models of land cover change due to natural resource extraction. Specifically, RL is evaluated based on its potential for constructing models independent of training datasets that can handle different levels of complexity and be transferred across different spatial extents. An RL model for Land Cover Change (RL-LCC) is developed for considering economic and ecological goals involved in natural resource management, and implemented using a hypothetical forest management scenario. Simulation results reveal that agents in the RL-LCC model are able to develop transition rules from their experience in their landscape in a variety of simulation scenarios that allow them to achieve their goals. This study demonstrates the benefits of integrating RL and GIS in order to address important issues of space, time and complexity.

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)0.011
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIMULATIONSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207