Considering spatiotemporal processes in big data analysis: Insights from remote sensing of land cover and land use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data are increasingly spatio‐temporal—they are collected some‐where and at some‐time. The role of proximity in spatial process is well understood, but its value is much more uncertain for many temporal processes. Using the domain of land cover/land use (LCLU), this article asserts that analyses of big data should be grounded in understandings of underlying process. Processes exhibit behaviors over both space and time. Observations and measurements may or may not coincide with the process of interest. Identifying the presence or absence of a given process, for instance disentangling vegetation phenology from stress, requires data analysis to be informed by knowledge of the process characteristics and, critically, how these manifest themselves over the spatio‐temporal unit of analysis. Drawing from LCLU, we emphasize the need to identify process and consider process phase to quantify important signals associated with that process. The aim should be to link the seriality of the spatio‐temporal data to the phase of the process being considered. We elucidate on these points and opportunities for insights and leadership from the geographic community.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".