MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399368926 · doi:10.21428/d82e957c.ba48518e

SLVVA: Scalable Land Viability via Vision-Language Architecture

2024· article· en· W4399368926 on OpenAlexaff
Vishvam Porwal, Stacey D. Scott, Neil D. B. Bruce, Asim Biswas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectureComputer scienceScalabilityComputer architectureGeographyArchaeologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital soil mapping is a process of creating maps of soil properties and their spatial distribution. It plays a vital role in monitoring soil health and promoting sustainable and efficient land use. In the past, environmental data was used to guide the creation of soil property maps. However, the failure to consider the accessibility of locations has led to a bias in the mapping process. In our research, we utilize satellite imagery to evaluate location accessibility, leading to more balanced soil property mapping. We formulate land viability detection and introduce a scalable two-step framework for its detection. Initially, we classify land viability, followed by its segmentation. We leverage Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for classification and a resilient and generalizable vision-language architecture for segmentation. Our most notable results stem from fine-tuning a pre-existing VGGNet for classification and employing a CLIP-based Segmentation method (CLIPSeg) for segmentation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through extensive experimentation on EuroSAT and OpenEarthMap datasets. Our work is the first to address the challenge of biased sampling in digital soil mapping by incorporating satellite images to assess the accessibility of locations, ensuring a more representative soil property mapping.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207