MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249305612 · doi:10.24124/2019/58966

Multi-layer perceptron - Markov chain based geospatial analysis of land use and land cover change: A case study of Stoney Creek Watershed, BC, Canada

2019· dissertation· en· W4249305612 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lei Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsWatershedLand coverGeospatial analysisRemote sensingMarkov chainMultilayer perceptronPerceptronLand useComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceCartographyArtificial neural networkGeographyData miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis study analyzed the land use and land cover (LULC) changes in Stoney Creek Watershed, BC, Canada using the combination of remote sensing, GIS and modeling approaches. The Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) tool in PCI Geomatica 2017 software was applied to generate unsupervised classification LULC maps using Landsat TM and OLI images of the years 1986, 1999 and 2016. Various band ratio were computed to improve different classification results. Esri ArcMap 10.5 was used to produce all the LULC maps for subsequent modeling. A modeling method using Multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network and Markov Chain (MC) was performed to predict LULC changes in 2026, using hard and soft prediction results. The outcomes of this study could provide valuable information of LULC patterns and dynamics for supporting both environmental and economic development in this area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207