Decoding the inconsistency of six cropland maps in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate cropland information is critical for agricultural planning and production, especially in food-stressed countries like China. Although widely used medium-to-high-resolution satellite-based cropland maps have been developed from various remotely sensed data sources over the past few decades, considerable discrepancies exist among these products both in total area and in spatial distribution of croplands, impeding further applications of these datasets. The factors influencing their inconsistency are also unknown. In this study, we evaluated the consistency and accuracy of six cropland maps widely used in China in circa 2020, including three state-of-the-art 10-m products (i.e., Google Dynamic World, ESRI Land Cover, and ESA WorldCover) and three 30-m ones (i.e., GLC_FCS30, GlobeLand 30, and CLCD). We also investigated the effects of landscape fragmentation, climate, and agricultural management. Validation using a ground-truth sample revealed that the 10-m-resolution WorldCover provided the highest accuracy (92.3%). These maps collectively overestimated Chinese cropland area by up to 56%. Up to 37% of the land showed spatial inconsistency among the maps, concentrated mainly in mountainous regions and attributed to the varying accuracy of cropland maps, cropland fragmentation and management practices such as irrigation. Our work shed light on the promotion of future cropland mapping efforts, especially in highly inconsistent regions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".