MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110880083 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2008.4779579

How do People Perceive the City's Green Space? A View from Satellite Imagery (In Hanoi, Vietnam)

2008· article· en· W2110880083 on OpenAlexaff
Thi Thanh Hiên Pham, Dong-Chen He

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)GeographyUrban green spaceSpace (punctuation)SatelliteSatellite imageStatistical softwareSatellite imageryRemote sensingComputer scienceEngineeringData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In urban design and management green space is one of the most important components concerning the satisfaction degree of the urban inhabitants. In such a circumstance, it is crucial for land managers and urbanites to know which type of green space the people living in cities prefer. However, this question has not been studied in developing countries in Asia. In this paper we verify the relation between the vegetation density of different green space types (extracted from a satellite image) and people's satisfaction in Hanoi city, Viet Nam. We conducted Quickbird satellite image segmentations and classifications by using image color, geometric and contextual information in the software Definiens 5.0. We then calculated the vegetation density based on administrative units. To evaluate the correlation between the mapped vegetation densities with inhabitants' satisfaction we carried out Spearman statistical tests. With a precision of 79% of image classification, we obtained four types of green space: agriculture, park trees, street-side trees and isolated trees. The results show that people are the mostly satisfied with the green space where street-side trees are the most popular green type.

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)0.000
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207