MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916951573 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v9n3p1

Production of Global Land Cover Data – GLCNMO2013

2017· article· en· W2916951573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toshiyuki Kobayashi, Ryutaro Tateishi, Bayan Alsaaideh, Ram C. Sharma, Takuma Wakaizumi, Daichi Miyamoto, Xiulian Bai, Bui D. Long, Gegentana Gegentana, Aikebaier Maitiniyazi, Destika Cahyana, Haireti Alifu, Yohei Morifuji, Gulijianati Abake, Rendy Pratama, Naijia Zhang, Zilaitigu Alifu, Tomohiro Shirahata, Lan Mi, Kotaro Iizuka, Yusupujiang Aimaiti, Fedri Ruluwedrata Rinawan, Richa Bhattarai, Dong Xuan Phong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand coverNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)GeographyLand usePhysical geographyCartographyComputer scienceSatelliteClimate changeGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global land cover products have been created for global environmental studies by several institutions and organizations. The Global Mapping Project coordinated by the International Steering Committee for Global Mapping (ISCGM) has been periodically producing global land cover datasets asone of the eight basic global datasets. It has produced a new fifteen-second (approximately 500 m resolution at the equator) global land cover dataset – GLCNMO2013 (or GLCNMO version 3). This paper describes the method of producing GLCNMO2013. GLCNMO2013 has 20 land cover classes, and they were mapped by improved methods from GLCNMO version 2. In GLCNMO2013, five classes,which are urban, mangrove, wetland, snow/ice, and waterwere independently classified. The remaining 15 classes were divided into 4 groups and mapped individually by supervised classification. 2006 polygons of training data collected for GLCNMO2008 were used for supervised classification. In addition, about 3000 polygons of new training data were collected globally using Google Earth, MODIS Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) seasonal change patterns, existing regional land cover maps, and existing four global land cover products. The primary data of this product were Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data of 2013. GLCNMO2013 was validated at 1006 sampled points. The overall accuracy of GLCNMO2013 was 74.8%, and the overall accuracy for eight aggregated classes was 90.2%. The accuracy of the GLCNMO2013 was not improved compared with the GLCNMO2008 at heterogeneous land covers. It is necessary to prepare the training data for mosaic classes and heterogeneous land covers for improving the accuracy.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations96
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207