Land use and cover with intensity of agriculture for Canada from satellite and census data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim To develop the first national databases on land use and agricultural land use intensity in Canada for a wide variety of environmental monitoring applications. Location Canada. Methods In this paper, we describe a new system for the construction of both land use and land use intensity (within agricultural regions) called LUCIA (land use and cover with intensity of agriculture). Our methodology combines the highly detailed Canadian Census of Agriculture and recent growing season composites derived from the SPOT4/VEGETATION sensor. Census data are of much coarser resolution than the remotely sensed data but, by removing non‐agricultural pixels from each census sampling area, we were able to refine the census data sufficiently to allow their use as ground truth data in some areas. The ‘refined’ census data were then used in the final step of an unsupervised classification of the remotely sensed data. Results and main conclusions The results of the land use classification are generally consistent with the input census data, indicating that the LUCIA output reflects actual land use trends as determined by national census information. Land use intensity, defined as the principal component of census variables that relate to agricultural inputs and outputs (e.g. chemical inputs, fertilizer inputs and manure outputs), is highest in the periphery of the great plains region of central Canada but is also very high in southern Ontario and Québec.
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".