MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614031501 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.39

Geospatial Analysis of Urbanization and its Impact on Land Use Changes in Sargodha, Pakistan

2017· article· en· W2614031501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar Riaz, Huma Munawar, Muhammad Nasar-u-Minallah, Kauser Hameed, Maryam Khalid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationLand useAgricultural landGeographyGeospatial analysisHectareEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingAgricultureLand use, land-use change and forestryCensusUrban sprawlSatellite imageryPhysical geographyPopulationEnvironmental healthEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this study is on the application of GIS and remote sensing on urbanization and its impact on land use changes in Sargodha from 1992-2015. Sargodha has witnessed rapid urbanization and due to urban expansion many changes have been detected in the land use of Sargodha. For this study, census data, multi-temporal city maps and multi spectral satellite images are used. Landsat TM 1992 and ETM+ 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 Landsat 8 are classified using supervised classified method (MLC) to produce land use maps. The classification accuracy has been assessed by calculating kappa index of agreement and ground control points were also collected to verify the results. The results indicate that, over the past 24 years there is a growing trend in urban land use while the agricultural land and all other categories are showing a declining trend since 1992. The total increase in urban land use is 25380.8 hectares and it has increased in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 at the rate of 2.2%, 4.1%, 9.2% and 17.4% respectively. This rapid urbanization resulted into loss of agricultural land. While the overall change observed in agricultural land, water area and bare land is -11008.5, -38926.5 and 9492.7 hectares respectively.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207