Assessing the accuracy of sensitivity analysis: an application for a cellular automata model of Bogota’s urban wetland changes
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
This study analyzes the outcomes of Cellular Automata (CA) with different neighborhood sizes and spatial resolution configurations on the performance of the Future Land Use Simulation (FLUS) model. The analysis is executed using three analogic images to extract the land use/land cover in Bogota, Colombia, for three years: 1998, 2004, and 2010. The FLUS model has an Artificial Neuronal Network model, which was used for calculating the relationships between the land uses and the associated drivers and to estimate the probability of occurrence of each land use. Whenever a CA is used to model and simulate, sensitivity analysis (SA) becomes a crucial step in CA modeling to understand better the influence of parameters’ changes in the simulation outcomes. Therefore, the SA is conducted by varying the neighborhood sizes between 3 × 3, 5 × 5, and 7 × 7 for 5 and 30 meters. In addition, cross-classification maps, Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Total Operating Characteristic, landscape metrics, the figure of merit, Fuzzy Kappa, and disagreement metrics were calculated to assess how well the model performed. High AUC values and low disagreement results show that, in general, the model performed well, and the accuracy of the outputs improves with a 3 × 3 neighborhood size and 5 meters spatial resolution. This study provides a broad assessment approach to the different methods that must be considered to evaluate the sensitivity of CA models in the simulation of urban wetlands’ spatial-temporal evolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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