MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2372869722

LUCC,ET and VC study on Ejina natural oasis over 25 years

2014· article· en· W2372869722 on OpenAlexaff
LV Zhongji

Bibliographic record

VenueGanhanqu ziyuan yu huanjing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand coverGrasslandRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)ShrubLand useEnvironmental scienceSpatial distributionPhysical geographyInversion (geology)EvapotranspirationHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyGeomorphologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the Landsat-TM remote sensing data,The land use/land cover change( LUCC) of Ejin natural oasis in 1980s,1900 and 2009 were interpreted. In addition,the vegetation cover( VC) was extracted,and then evapotranspiration( ET) inverted with SEBS. With the contrast of 7 field verification points and 11 Google Earth verification points,the image interpretation and remote sensing inversion ET in 2009 were accurately verified. ET remote sensing inversion accuracy is higher,the accuracy of imagery interpretation is 77. 78% and average relative error is 8. 72%,and it accords with the research of the accuracy requirement. At the same time,the influences of the spatial and temporal patterns of ET,VC,LUCC and LUCC on ET and VC were discussed.The ET and VC space distributions were related to the type of LUCC,high ET value areas were mainly in the 19branch river of the East Juyanhai,( Sogo Nur),East River( Naryn River),Nishikawa( Mulin River),and forest land,VC larger shrub and grass. And low ET value areas were mainly in the desert,residents,VC small shrubs,degradation serious grassland and a small amount of cultivated land. ET and VC distribution were generally consistent except for water area. Therefore,the spatial patterns of LUCC basically controled the distribution characteristics of ET and VC in the study 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)0.001
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 score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGanhanqu ziyuan yu huanjingSame topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207