Comparison of Techniques for Forest Change Mapping Using Landsat Data in Karnataka, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for forest change monitoring in the state of Karnataka, India using Landsat imagery was evaluated. Imagery from 1986 and 2003 was analyzed using two change detection techniques: (1) image differencing of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), the second principal component (PC2), and the Kauth‐Thomas greenness index (KT‐G), and (2) post‐classification comparison (PCC). As field validation data did not exist for 1986, extensive visual assessment was conducted to locate and identify errors of commission and omission in the change maps. The image difference vegetation maps did not display obvious errors of omission, but the NDVI difference performed better than KT‐G and PC2 differences in terms of errors of commission. It was therefore classified into a deforestation/reforestation map and evaluated against the PCC forest change map. PCC was able to more accurately detect changes over the 17‐year period. Analysis of the literature and the forest change maps showed that deforestation was primarily a result of submergence by reservoirs created in hydroelectric developments, whereas reforestation was mainly due to significant increases in forest plantations, as a result of various social forestry projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".