IMPROVING DATA QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT FOR REMOTE SENSING ANALYSIS: USE-CASES AND EMERGING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
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
Abstract. During the last decades satellite remote sensing has become an emerging technology producing big data for various application fields every day. However, data quality checking as well as the long-time management of data and models are still issues to be improved. They are indispensable to guarantee smooth data integration and the reproducibility of data analysis such as carried out by machine learning models. In this paper we clarify the emerging need of improving data quality and the management of data and models in a geospatial database management system before and during data analysis. In different use cases various processes of data preparation and quality checking, integration of data across different scales and references systems, efficient data and model management, and advanced data analysis are presented in detail. Motivated by these use cases we then discuss emerging research questions concerning data preparation and data quality checking, data management, model management and data integration. Finally conclusions drawn from the paper are presented and an outlook on future research work is given.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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