MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2351161718 · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/34/1/012033

Modeling land cover dynamics to assess the sustainability of wetland services: a case study of the Grand Lake Meadows, Canada

2016· article· en· W2351161718 on OpenAlexaffabout
Oluwatimilehin Okikiolu Shodimu, Raid Al-Tahir

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandLand coverEcosystem servicesSustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementLand useEcosystemGeographyHabitatBaseline (sea)Environmental scienceEcologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Grand Lake Meadows is an important part of the Saint John River wetlands that form the largest freshwater wetland habitat in the Maritimes (eastern Canada). Changes in the land cover and use around wetlands significantly impact their biotic diversity, alter the ecosystem, and affect their ability to support human needs. The goal for this paper was to undertake a detailed and spatially explicit inventory of local trends in land use and land cover changes in Grand Lake Meadows over a 20-year time period. This goal was achieved through classifying historical remotely-sensed images to map the state of land use and cover. Other available data were combined with this information to create a database that was used to investigate the causes and consequences of changes. The results demonstrated the flexibility and the effectiveness of this technology in establishing the necessary baseline and support information for sustaining the eco-services of a wetland. The study identified a 38% decrease in the wetland from 1990 to 2001, while there was 80% increase in the wetland area since then. The result will help managers to comprehend the dynamics of the changes, prompting a better management and implementation of LULC administration in the area.

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 score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207