MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DO NDVI COM A IMPLANTAÇÃO DA SP-21 (RODOANEL): SÉRIE HISTÓRICA PARA 1985 - 2010

2017· article· pt· W2740021738 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Nery dos Santos, Kamila Venâncio de Oliveira, Marcos Antônio Maia de Oliveira, Alexandre Formigoni

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth American Development Society Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGeography and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pesquisa analisou o índice de vegetação com a construção do Rodoanel Mário Covas (SP-21), para a série história de 1985 a 2010. Para tanto, utilizaram-se técnicas de sensoriamento remoto, com análise de imagens de satélite, através do NDVI – Índice de Vegetação por Diferença Normatizada, com uma escala de medida linear entre –1 e 1. A SP-21 corta a Região Metropolitana de São Paulo – RMSP, que é a maior do país. Composta por 39 municípios e, uma população de aproximadamente 22 milhões de habitantes (IBGE, 2016). A SP-21, tem um traçado projetado de 181 km de extensão, dividido em quatro trechos: Norte, Sul, Leste, Oeste. Atualmente, apenas o trecho Norte não opera. Este trabalho teve como objetivo principal realizar o cálculo de NDVI, a partir das cenas de imagens do satélite Landsat-7 da RMSP, com ênfase para o traçado da Rodovia SP-21, localizada no Estado de São Paulo. Com os dados coletados e analisados, percebeu-se que não houve alterações significativas na massa vegetal. Contudo, é inegável que a construção da rodovia tem provocado impactos ambientais negativos, mas este estudo não teve como objetivo apontar tais danos.

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)0.002
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth American Development Society JournalSame topicGeography and Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207