MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W778237400 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v5n4p94

Assessment of Land Cover Change in the North Eastern Nigeria 1986 to 2005

2013· dissertation· en· W778237400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. S. Garba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyLand coverCover (algebra)ForestryPhysical geographyLand useEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental disturbance such as drought, overgrazing, and increase in population in north eastern Nigeria over the years has led to degradation, shortage of land and water resources and sometimes violent conflict among communities. Land cover change provides a vital means of understanding and managing these problems. Thus this research provided an assessment of how tree, shrub grass, bare ground and urban land cover changed from 1986 to 2005. NigeriaSat-1 and Landsat images were used with data obtained from field survey for the land cover classifications. Change in the land covers were analysed according to persistence, swapping, net loss and gain. Uncertainties were analysed by confusion matrices. The overall accuracies of the classifications used for the analysis are between 60% and 75%. The transition and change accuracies are between 45% and 60%. Approximately 60% of the area of study remained unchanged during the period. Of the remainder, approximately 11% of the area interchanged between shrub grass and bare ground. The most unstable category was shrub grass and was also the source of misclassification. The changes in general concurred with the perception of change in the area and gave some insight on the change that occurred.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207