General Land Use Cover Datasets for America and Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this chapter we review some examples of general Land Use Cover (LUC) mapping at a supra-national level in America and Asia. These datasets provide a general overview of the land uses and covers in specific American or Asian regions, without focusing on any particular land use or cover. For Asia, we have only identified one dataset mapping the Himalayan region, whereas for America five different datasets were identified. Only three of these are reviewed here, as the other two (SERENA, South America 30 m) are not available for download. The most ambitious project of all those reviewed is NALCMS, which coordinates the production of a LUC map for the whole of North America (Canada, Mexico, USA) at detailed scales (30–250 m) and using the same classification legend. It is the only dataset of all those reviewed that provides a time series of LUC maps (2005, 2010 and 2015). The Himalaya Regional Land Cover database is a vector-based map that provides information on LUC changes over the period 1970/80–2007 at a scale of 1:350,000. The other two American datasets—LBA-ECO LC-08 (1 km, 1987/91) and MERISAM2009 (300 m, 2008/10)—are raster-based and only available for one date, therefore making change detection impossible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.024 |
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".