Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper deals with the description and assessment of uncertainties in land use data derived from Remote Sensing observations, in the context of hydrological studies. Land use is a categorical regionalised variable reporting the main socio-economic role each location has, where the role is inferred from the pattern of occupation of land. The properties of this pattern that are relevant to hydrological processes have to be known with some accuracy in order to obtain reliable results; hence, uncertainty in land use data may lead to uncertainty in model predictions. There are two main uncertainties surrounding land use data, positional and categorical. The first one is briefly addressed and the second one is explored in more depth, including the factors that influence it. We (1) argue that the conventional method used to assess categorical uncertainty, the confusion matrix, is insufficient to propagate uncertainty through distributed hydrologic models; (2) report some alternative methods to tackle this and other insufficiencies; (3) stress the role of metadata as a more reliable means to assess the degree of distrust with which these data should be used; and (4) suggest some practical recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".