RETRIEVAL AND MAPPING OF HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATION IN SOIL USING TIME SERIES LANDSAT 8 IMAGERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Heavy metal pollution is a critical global environmental problem which has always been a concern. Traditional approach to obtain heavy metal concentration relying on field sampling and lab testing is expensive and time consuming. Although many related studies use spectrometers data to build relational model between heavy metal concentration and spectra information, and then use the model to perform prediction using the hyperspectral imagery, this manner can hardly quickly and accurately map soil metal concentration of an area due to the discrepancies between spectrometers data and remote sensing imagery. Taking the advantage of easy accessibility of Landsat 8 data, this study utilizes Landsat 8 imagery to retrieve soil Cu concentration and mapping its distribution in the study area. To enlarge the spectral information for more accurate retrieval and mapping, 11 single date Landsat 8 imagery from 2013–2017 are selected to form a time series imagery. Three regression methods, partial least square regression (PLSR), artificial neural network (ANN) and support vector regression (SVR) are used to model construction. By comparing these models unbiasedly, the best model are selected to mapping Cu concentration distribution. The produced distribution map shows a good spatial autocorrelation and consistency with the mining area locations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".