MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925093688 · doi:10.1080/00167223.2019.1587307

A geospatial approach to assessing land change in the built-up landscape of Wa Municipality of Ghana

2019· article· en· W2925093688 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Kpienbaareh, Joseph Oduro Appiah

Bibliographic record

VenueGeografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisGeographyLand coverLand useVegetation (pathology)SustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementLand use, land-use change and forestryUrban planningGeographic information systemAgricultureEnvironmental planningCartographyRemote sensingEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban landscapes are changing in response to changes in socio-economic conditions. Land change scientists seek to understand these land dynamics in the coupled human-environment system of urban landscapes. This study assessed land change in the built-up area of Wa Municipality between 1986 and 2016 using Landsat images. We used the Support Vector Machine algorithm for classifying the images. We recorded image classification accuracies of 97%, 95%, 92% and 96% for the 1986, 1996, 2006 and 2016 classified images, respectively. Our study finds that over the 1986–2016 period, agricultural land and bare land transitioned to build-up land by 9.23% and 3.79%, respectively, as compared to 2.79% for vegetation and 0.05% for water. Our in-municipal level analysis thus shows that urban landscapes could expand more sustainably by targeting other dominant land categories instead of the vegetation cover. The findings in this paper could serve as a spatial model for planning and reducing the unintended socio-ecological impacts of expansion in the built-up area.

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)0.002
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 score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of GeographySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207