MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058553647 · doi:10.3808/jei.200300016

Detecting Urban Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes in Mississauga Using Landsat TM Images

2003· article· en· W2058553647 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jianbing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImpervious surfaceLand coverLand useRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)GeographyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)ForestryGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The City of Mississauga in Ontario has been experiencing a fast urban growth in the past two decades which has caused rapid loss of the valuable farm and open space land. Land-use and land-cover maps of the City were produced from Landsat TM images for 1985 and 1999, spanning a period of 14 years. Dramatic changes in land use and land cover have occurred, with loss of forest, cropland and water body to urban use. In particular, low-density urban use, which includes largely residential use, has increased by over 7.4% between 1985 and 1999. These land-use and land-cover changes have drastically altered the land surface characteristics. An analysis of Landsat TM images revealed an increase of 23.7 km2 of built-up area and a decrease of non-built (23.2 km2) and water area (0.5 km2). This paper illustrates the usefulness of a remote sensing approach for the urban change studies. According to the land-use and land-cover maps, four vegetation-impervious surface-soil (V-I-S) patterns of the city development were identified pertain to Mississauga’s features.

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)0.001
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental InformaticsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207