MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System Applications for Land Use and Land-Suitability Mapping: Case Study—Irbid District, Jordan

2011· article· en· W2613135575 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hussein Harahsheh, Ryutaro Tateishi, Omer El-Qudah

Bibliographic record

VenueArab world geographer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoreferenceLand information systemLand useRemote sensingAgricultural landGeographic information systemGeographyLand-use planningLand managementAgricultureDistribution (mathematics)CartographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyCivil engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on the spatial distribution of land-use and land-suitability categories and the pattern of their changes is a prerequisite for land-resources management—particularly for agricultural and land-use planning. It is well established that remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) have the potential to make the most significant contribution for land-use mapping and land-suitability analysis. The study was conducted as a pilot project to demonstrate the utility of these tools for land-use and agricultural planning.In this paper, SPOT imagery and aerial photographs were used to analyze the utilization of land through a tree structural classification, which consists of subdividing the classification into levels of analysis, proceeding from the lower level to the next higher one. Then climatic, topographic, soil, and land-use data were georeferenced to the same coordinate system and combined together to create land-suitability maps.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArab world geographerSame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207