Bibliographic record
Abstract
GlobeLand30 is the world’s first 30m high resolution land cover data set (Chen et al. 2014) and has been a successful model of Big-Data mining from a host of Landsat imagery, thereby contributing to and enhancing the existing global geospatial knowledge base (GlobeLand30 2014). As there is a lot of uncertainty and errors in the global land cover data, therefore it becomes very difficult to validate land cover on a global scale. Efforts on validating Globeland30 data have been made in various parts of the world in the past and will continue to be done. The objective of this project is to validate GlobeLand30 data set by carrying out a case study in Ontario, Canada. The adopted methodology for doing validation is by using cell-to-cell benchmarking (Maria et al. 2015), thereby deriving Error Matrix, and its derivatives, which includes overall accuracy, user accuracy, producer accuracy and kappa coefficient. The results show that an overall accuracy of 84.14% is obtained for GlobeLand30 data with consideration of shadows, which is relatively a high percentage number indicating that the GlobeLand30 data classification is highly accurate for Ontario, Canada. Keywords: land cover; GlobeLand30; accuracy assessment; Ontario
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".