MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W745713660 · doi:10.58729/1941-6687.1233

Using IT and GIS to Improve Crop Assesments

2014· article· en· W745713660 on OpenAlexaff
LtCol Michael L. Thomas, Dr.Steve Hallman, Michael Plisent, Prosper Bernard

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the IIMA · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Supply Chain Traceability
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Law enforcementAgency (philosophy)State (computer science)Plan (archaeology)Computer scienceWork (physics)EngineeringGeographyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Without attacking the issue of marijuana, it is practically impossible to meet the stated goals of the President's overall plan for decreasing illicit drug use. Within this context, this paper will examine the most authoritative data published by the U.S. government agencies that specialize in counter-narcotics issues. The objective of this paper is to describe how IT and GIS can help the drug policy community by providing possible better estimates of illegal crops. Pioneering work in imagery and crop estimation was done by the US Dept of Agriculture as far back as the 1930's. Archeologists use modern GIS techniques to develop areas of interest for historical digs. Specifically, a DSS design is presented, relying on three components: Functions necessary for the generation of a cueing layer, functions that interface with the Digital Mapping Server, and functions demanded by state agencies. The practicability of this approach has been demonstrated in a pilot project in the state of Mississippi, and is thus advocated. Deploying the Beta version of the model increased eradication efficiencies by an estimated 21% according to the lead Law Enforcement Agency using the technology in the state of Mississippi. Following this success, efforts are currently underway to deploy the technology in both the Appalachian region and the state of California — both high production areas of interest.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the IIMASame topicFood Supply Chain TraceabilityFrench-language works237,207