MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956008376 · doi:10.11137/2019_2_72_85

The Use of Remote Sensing Indices for Land Cover Change Detection

2019· article· pt· W2956008376 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Facincani Dourado, J. S. MOTTA, David F. Scott, Sandra Garcia Gabas

Bibliographic record

VenueAnuário do Instituto de Geociências · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange detectionNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexRemote sensingWetlandEnvironmental scienceLand coverVegetation (pathology)GeoprocessingRiparian zoneScale (ratio)Physical geographyLand useLand use, land-use change and forestryHydrology (agriculture)GeographyCartographyGeologyClimate changeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote sensing technology has been applied to monitor anthropogenic changes in the landscape that produce impacts on natural resources, such as environmental degradation, changes in the hydrological cycle and in ecosystems structure and functioning. As digital change detection may be a difficult task to perform, this study proposes a simple and logical technique to display land cover changes using Landsat imagery. Open source geoprocessing tools were used to acquire information for mapping changes on the land surface. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) derived from satellite images of four dates between 1984 and 2016 were used in RGB composites. The method was used to map gains and losses of vegetation cover and liquid water content in a spatiotemporal scale. The results indicate that this change detection method can effectively reflect the variations occurred over the years. Although both indices have similar responses, NDWI may provide opposite information to NDVI in certain areas, such as in wetlands and riparian zones, presenting wetness losses even in places that exhibit gains in vegetation. This method has applicability to other regions for deriving historical changes.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnuário do Instituto de GeociênciasSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207