MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160783119 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v1n2p33

Assessment of Wetlands in Kuala Terengganu District Using Landsat^TM

2009· article· en· W2160783119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kasawani Ibrahim, Kamaruzaman Jusoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandGeographyRemote sensingCover (algebra)Land coverPhysical geographyChange detectionCartographyEnvironmental scienceLand useEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetland cover mapping is very important in identifying its areal extent and the rate of change over time. This studyaims to map the areal extent and its rate of change in Kuala Terengganu district which covers approximately 4,690.65hectares. Three LandsatTM images, which dated on 15th October 1998, 14th July 2002 and 15th August 2005 were used indigital image processing by using a RGB band combination of 4, 5, and 2. The overall classification accuracies for the1998, 2002 and 2005 images were 74.55, 82.42 and 90.91 percent, respectively. The United State Geology Survey(USGS) Classification Scheme was used to determine the wetland and the images were independently classified andtotal areas of wetland cover were compared between different dates of imageries. Surprisingly, there was an unexpectedsignificant increase (from 102.35 to 381.35 ha) in the areal extent of wetlands in a seven year period of 1998 to 2005with a rate of change of 0.84% increase per year. This study implies that the integration of remote sensing andGeographical Information System (GIS) may provide a useful tool for temporal studies in wetland cover and its rate ofchange in Kuala Trengganu district

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207