A landscape metrics-based sample weighting approach for forecasting land cover change with deep learning models
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
Unaddressed imbalance of multitemporal land cover (LC) data reduces deep learning (DL) model usefulness to forecast changes. To manage geospatial data imbalance, there is a lack of specialized cost-sensitive learning strategies available. Sample weights are typically derived from training instance frequencies, which disregard spatial pattern complexities. Therefore, this study proposes a geospatial sample weighting approach underpinned by class-level landscape metrics (LSMs) to assign importance to categories based on relative indicators of spatial form. A case study demonstrates the application and effects of the LSM-based sample weighting approach for projecting LC changes of a region in British Columbia, Canada. Four spatiotemporal DL models are provided weighted training samples including multitemporal LC data and explanatory factors. Sample weights calculated from indicators of patch density, shape irregularity, and shape heterogeneity improved figure of merit and related measures over baseline configurations. This study contributes to LC change data imbalance management strategies for DL models.
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 | 0.000 | 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