Collaborative validation of GlobeLand30: Methodology and practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
30-m Global Land Cover (GLC) data products permit the detection of land cover changes at the scale of most human land activities, and are therefore used as fundamental information for sustainable development, environmental change studies, and many other societal benefit areas. In the past few years, increasing efforts have been devoted to the accuracy assessment of GlobeLand30 and other finer-resolution GLC data products. However, most of them were conducted either within a limited percentage of map sheets selected from a global scale or in some individual countries (areas), and there are still many areas where the uncertainty of 30-m resolution GLC data products remains to be validated and documented. In order to promote a comprehensive and collaborative validation of 30-m GLC data products, the GEO Global Land Cover Community Activity had organized a project from 2015 to 2017, to examine and explore its major problems, including the lack of international agreed validation guidelines and on-line tools for facilitating collaborative validation activities. With the joint effort of experts and users from 30 GEO member countries or participating organizations, a technical specification for 30-m GLC validation was developed based on the findings and experiences. An on-line validation tool, GLCVal, was developed by integrating land cover validation procedures with the service computing technologies. About 20 countries (regions) have completed the accuracy assessment of GlobeLand30 for their territories with the guidance of the technical specification and the support of GLCVal.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it