Exploring Spatial Influence of Remotely Sensed PM2.5 Concentration Using a Developed Deep Convolutional Neural Network Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, more and more remotely sensed data are being accumulated, and the spatial analysis methods for remotely sensed data, especially big data, are desiderating innovation. A deep convolutional network (CNN) model is proposed in this paper for exploiting the spatial influence feature in remotely sensed data. The method was applied in investigating the magnitude of the spatial influence of four factors-population, gross domestic product (GDP), terrain, land-use and land-cover (LULC)-on remotely sensed PM2.5 concentration over China. Satisfactory results were produced by the method. It demonstrates that the deep CNN model can be well applied in the field of spatial analysing remotely sensed big data. And the accuracy of the deep CNN is much higher than of geographically weighted regression (GWR) based on comparation. The results showed that population spatial density, GDP spatial density, terrain, and LULC could together determine the spatial distribution of PM2.5 annual concentrations with an overall spatial influencing magnitude of 97.85%. Population, GDP, terrain, and LULC have individual spatial influencing magnitudes of 47.12% and 36.13%, 50.07% and 40.91% on PM2.5 annual concentrations respectively. Terrain and LULC are the dominating spatial influencing factors, and only these two factors together may approximately determine the spatial pattern of PM2.5 annual concentration over China with a high spatial influencing magnitude of 96.65%.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".