MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976506461 · doi:10.3390/su11195376

Short-Term Forecasting of Land Use Change Using Recurrent Neural Network Models

2019· article· en· W2976506461 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cong Cao, Suzana Dragićević, Songnian Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecurrent neural networkComputer scienceGeospatial analysisDeep learningTerm (time)Land useSuiteArtificial intelligenceMachine learningProcess (computing)Artificial neural networkData miningGeographyCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land use change (LUC) is a dynamic process that significantly affects the environment, and various approaches have been proposed to analyze and model LUC for sustainable land use management and decision making. Recurrent neural network (RNN) models are part of deep learning (DL) approaches, which have the capability to capture spatial and temporal features from time-series data and sequential data. The main objective of this study was to examine variants of the RNN models by applying and comparing them when forecasting LUC in short time periods. Historical land use data for the City of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada were used to implement the several variants of the RNN models. The land use (LU) data for years 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 were used to train the DL models to enable the short-term forecast for the year 2016. For the 2011 to 2016 period, only 4.5% of the land use in the study area had changed. The results indicate that an overall accuracy of 86.9% was achieved, while actual changes in each LU type were forecasted with a relatively lower accuracy. However, only 25% of changed raster cells correctly forecasted the land use change. This research study demonstrates that RNN models provide a suite of valuable tools for short-term LUC forecast that can inform and complement the traditional long-term planning process; however, further additional geospatial data layers and considerations of driving factors of LUC need to be incorporated for model improvements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207