MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056570528 · doi:10.1109/rsete.2012.6260614

Land-Use Multicritera Evaluation Involving Carbon Sequestration Benefits Based on GIS and RS

2012· article· en· W2056570528 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Weimin Ju, Jingming Chen, Manchun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processCarbon sequestrationLand useStatus quoEnvironmental resource managementGeographic information systemMultiple-criteria decision analysisEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceForestryRemote sensingGeographyOperations researchEngineeringEcologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrestrial ecosystems, especially forest ecosystems, can provide significant Carbon Sequestration (CS) potential. Forestry land-use suitability analysis aims at identifying the most appropriate spatial pattern for future land uses according to specific requirements, preferences, or predictors of some activities. This paper aims at inspecting the utilization of RS, carbon models and GIS technology in regional land-use evaluation involving carbon benefits through a case study at Liping County, Guizhou Province, China. It has the following objectives: (1) to provide spatially explicit quantitative simulation of forestry land uses; (2) to use a MCDM method, i.e. the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), with GIS for comprehensive evaluation of the suitability of local forestry land use statue quo in consideration of geographical, eco-environmental and socio-economic (including carbon) indicators; and (3) to compare the evaluation results from two different multi-criteria evaluation processes with and without consideration of CS benefits.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.256
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 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207