Strategies for Incorporating High-Resolution Google Earth Databases to Guide and Validate Classifications: Understanding Deforestation in Borneo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International climate change mitigation initiatives such as REDD-plus have fuelled the need for forest monitoring efforts that focus especially on the carbon rich natural ecosystems that are found in the humid tropics. Such monitoring efforts must tackle challenges intrinsic to these regions, such as high atmospheric contamination from particulates and persistent cloud cover. The emergence of new high-resolution platforms like Google Earth offers new potential scientific uses that can help meet these challenges. Using data from MODIS and detailed observation of Google Earth images, we have produced a yearly time series of deforestation hotspots for the island of Borneo for the 2000 to 2009 period. Our workflow and results demonstrate how multiple free data sources can be combined to greatly enhance the individual capacities of each. The methodology employed to produce this time series demonstrates simple, low-expense techniques that can be used to circumvent the obstacles that typically hinder systematic remote sensing in Borneo and other heavily clouded areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".