MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6929977069 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.11159363

italosrodrigues/GEE-RF-LC-code: GEE-RF-code

2024· other· en· W6929977069 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaster graphicsPixelLand coverRaster dataCover (algebra)Floodplain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The code used for the Randon Forest (RF) model in Google Earth Engine (GEE) For Land Sat 5: RF_LS5 For Land Sat 8: RF_LS8 This model was used by Italo Rodrigues as part of his PhD project "Multi-decadal Floodplain Classification and Trend Analysis in the Upper Columbia River Valley, British Columbia" as a first approach for land cover classification. The model inputs are divided in to files: Training pixels data (70% used for training) Validation pixels data (30% reserved for training) In this research, we utilise a variety of reference remote sensing data sources: UAV and Airborne LiDAR, aerial photographs, geotagged photos, Sentinel 2, and historical classified land cover (Hermosilla et al., 2022) to generate training samples per each year. To extract or determine the most reliable training pixels within areas of unchanging landcover class, the time series classification of Hermosilla et al. (2022) was used. Land cover permanence was calculated by summing the number of times each land cover class pixel was identified in the same pixel location. Reference rasters contain a numerical pixel value (i.e. 1 – open water; 2 – marsh; 3 – wet meadow; 4 – woody/shrub) that corresponds to each land cover in the input rasters. The 1984 land cover raster was chosen as the reference raster because this was the first year of the record, thereby providing a baseline or starting point from which to compare. The permanent land cover raster was then used within GEE to mask out permanent zones within the study floodplain that showed potential as training areas. Training pixels were then allocated within these training areas and used over the whole time-series. However, in the years with available higher resolution imagery (i.e., sporadically throughout the time series: Aerial photographs – 1984 to 1991, 2005, 2007, and 2009; Sentinel 2 – 2016 to 2022; Airborne LiDAR – 2018; UAV LiDAR and geotagged photos – 2022), which by expert interpretive identification of land cover class was possible to increase the number of training pixels in these years with more reference datasets. The model result is a single raster file including the four aforementioned land covers; also, the area (km2) of each land cover, overall accuracy, and Kappa coefficient of the classification will be displayed in the right bar of the GEE. The historical land cover maps (Hermosilla et al., 2022)) used to create and identify the Land cover permanent zones are open access and are available at https://opendata.nfis.org/mapserver/nfis-change_eng.html

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3640.347

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways→French-language works237,207→