Modélisation par automate cellulaire de scénarios d'aménagement forestier dans une région rurale du sud du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Maskoutains regional county municipality (RCM) in Southern Quebec, Canada, is a dominant agricultural territory characterized by intense deforestation caused by agriculture intensification.A cellular automata (CA) model was elaborated to simulate the future territorial dynamics of this agro-forested landscape.CA are simulation models in which space is an array 0f cells that evolve through time with the application of transition rules dictating how the different celi states react to state configurations present in a specified neighborhood.A specific spatial scale characterizes CA models when they are used to simulate a geographic territory.Scale has been shown to significantly influence statistical analysis and modeling resuits.However, decisions related to scale components in CA modeling are often made arbitrarily, and their impact on the simulation resuits is stili poorly understood.The objective 0f this study is twofold: 1) perform a scale sensitivity analysis 0f CA, and 2) test the influence 0f different land-use scenarios implemented to protect the remaining forested areas.To test the sensitivity to spatial scale, CA were elaborated using a combination 0f multiple ceil sizes and neighborhood configurations.Probabilistic transition rules were computed from the comparison cf two landuse maps derived from Landsat-TM images.Resuits of the sensitivity analysis reveal that spatial scale has a considerable impact on simulation outcomes both in terms 0f land-cover areas and spatial structure.The spatial scale domains that are present in the resuits show the non-linear relationships that link the spatial scale components to the simulation resuits.Based on these findings, a CA was elaborated to study the impact cf varicus forest management scenarios (reduced deforestation, ligniculture, forest connectivity protection).Resuits indicate that none 0f the scenarios succeed in maintaining the actual levels 0f forest area.However, certain scenarios significantly reduce the Ioss of forest areas in the short to mid-term, and delay the fragmentation, reduction, and isolation of fotest patches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".