MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303519804 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v8n1p41

Landscape Changes and Fragmentation Analysis in a Guinea Savannah Ecosystem: Case study of Talensi and Nabdam Districts of the Upper East region, Ghana

2016· article· en· W2303519804 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steve Ampofo, Isaac Sackey, Boateng Ampadu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragmentation (computing)GeographyLand coverPhysical geographyCategorical variableSatellite imageryForestryEcologyCartographyRemote sensingLand useMathematicsBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landcover change is an observed natural change dynamics at both the local and regional levels. However, its scales are exacerbated by human interaction with its natural environment. The study examines these spatio-temporal changes in landcover and the level to which the change is accompanied by fragmentation of the identifiable cover types in the Talensi and Nabdam districts in Northern Ghana. The research uses digital classification of Landsat satellite imagery for 1999 and 2007 to produce the cover types which results in good accuracy levels of 66.39% and 63.03% respectively. Fragmentation analysis of the landscape was computed using FRAGSTATS® software for categorical maps obtained from the classified landcover maps for the two years. All cover types increased marginally. However, Bare areas decreased by as much as 17.17% and that of water decreased from 3% to 1%. The changing landscape involving conversions within and among various cover types is accompanied by fragmentation in all classes but more pronounced in the Bare class. The Bare class type which has more patches corresponds to the class with increased cover size and rather strangely decreases in the mean path size.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207