Cross Validation can Cause a Difference of Misinterpretation to Valid Interpretation

1
Vipin Upadhyay
Vipin Upadhyay
2
B. S. Adhikari
B. S. Adhikari
1 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Send Message

To: Author

GJHSS Volume 16 Issue B4

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

QUHUE

Cross Validation can Cause a Difference of Misinterpretation to Valid Interpretation Banner
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu

Easy availability of remote sensing dataset increases its importance and use by multiple folds, especially in areas of rough and difficult terrain like snow bound mountains. But at the same chances of misinterpretations will also be increased in the same proportion, when dealing with high altitude mountains in remote sensing. Seasonal variation within single year time framework and temporal changes in long time are more important to understand separately. Verification of the imagery selection, operations and findings is the key of analysis. This paper focused upon misinterpretation often occurs in the geospatial domain by shifting the focus, when observations transforming to information. A negligible error in selection of imagery, operation or perception make it possible to misinterpret the findings. In this study we are try to withdrawing kind attention of users toward small-small negligence, that cost a lot. In this study we take area under Nanda Devi national Park as an example to highlight such errors.

29 Cites in Articles

References

  1. Helen Couclelis (1992). Conceptual Models of Error and Uncertainty.
  2. Helen Couclelis (2003). The Certainty of Uncertainty: GIS and the Limits of Geographic Knowledge.
  3. P Deer (1999). Digital Change Detection Techniques: Civilian and Military Application Published in the UK.
  4. F Dretske (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information.
  5. R Gareth,I Brown,M Kari,V Tarmo,W Ben (2002). How Can the Dynamics of the Tundra-Taiga Boundary Be Remotely Monitored.
  6. J Gong,H Sui,M Guoruia,Q Zhou (2008). A Review of Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing Data Change Detection Algorithms.
  7. K Ichii,A Kawabata,Y Yamaguchi (2002). Global correlation analysis for NDVI and climatic variables and NDVI trends: 1982-1990.
  8. Jeremy Kerr,Marsha Ostrovsky (2003). From space to species: ecological applications for remote sensing.
  9. J Kerr,M Ostrovsky (2003). From space to species: ecological applications for remote sensing.
  10. K Lee (1991). Closure report for decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) category, Corrective Action Unit 95, EPA Farm Laboratory Building 15-06, Nevada Test Site.
  11. P Leonardo,G Franceisco,A Jose,Sobrino,C Juan,M Jimenez,K Haydee (2006). Radiometric correction effects in lands at multidate/multi-sensor change detection studies.
  12. Li Deren (2010). Remotely sensed images and GIS data fusion for automatic change detection.
  13. T M Lillesand,R Kiefer (1987). Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation.
  14. D Lu,P Mausel,E Brondizio,E Moran (2004). Change detection techniques.
  15. R Lunette,R Congalton,F Lynn,R John,K Mcgwire,L Tinnery (1991). Remote sensing and geographic information systems: Error sources and research issues.
  16. J Lyon,D Yuan,R Lunetta,C Elvidge (1998). A Change Detection Experiment Using Vegetation Indices.
  17. R Manonmani,G Mary,D Suganya (2010). Remote Sensing and GIS Application in Change Detection Study in Urban Zone Using Multi Temporal Satellite.
  18. L Martin,P Howarth (1989). Change-detection accuracy assessment using SPOT multispectral imagery of the rural-urban fringe☆.
  19. P Mumby,A Edwards (2002). Mapping marine environments with IKONOS imagery: enhanced spatial resolution can deliver greater thematic accuracy.
  20. P Mumby,A Harborne (1999). Development of a systematic classification scheme of marine habitats to facilitate regional management and mapping of Caribbean coral reefs.
  21. Johannes Oerlemans (1994). Quantifying Global Warming from the Retreat of Glaciers.
  22. S Ozesmi,M Bauer (2002). Satellite remote sensing of wetlands.
  23. J Paruelo,W Lauenroth (1998). Interannual variability of NDVI and its relationship to climate for North American shrub lands and grasslands.
  24. C Ricotta,G Avena (2000). The remote sensing approach in broad‐scale phenological studies.
  25. A Singh (1989). Digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data.
  26. B Tobias,U Kamp (2008). Glacier Mapping in High Mountains Using DEMs Landsat and ASTER Data.
  27. Woody Turner,Sacha Spector,Ned Gardiner,Matthew Fladeland,Eleanor Sterling,Marc Steininger (2003). Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation.
  28. H Veregin (1989). Accuracy of spatial Databases: Annotated Bibliography. National Center for geographic information and Analysis.
  29. W Zhou,T Austin,G Morgan (2008). Objectbased Land Cover Classification and Change Analysis in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area Using Multitemporal High Resolution Remote Sensing Data.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

Vipin Upadhyay. 2016. \u201cCross Validation can Cause a Difference of Misinterpretation to Valid Interpretation\u201d. Global Journal of Human-Social Science - B: Geography, Environmental Science & Disaster Management GJHSS-B Volume 16 (GJHSS Volume 16 Issue B4): .

Download Citation

Issue Cover
GJHSS Volume 16 Issue B4
Pg. 29- 34
Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJHSS

Print ISSN 0975-587X

e-ISSN 2249-460X

Keywords
Classification
GJHSS-B Classification: FOR Code: 969999
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

August 25, 2016

Language

English

Experiance in AR

The methods for personal identification and authentication are no exception.

Read in 3D

The methods for personal identification and authentication are no exception.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 3760
Total Downloads: 1961
2026 Trends
Research Identity (RIN)
Related Research

Published Article

Easy availability of remote sensing dataset increases its importance and use by multiple folds, especially in areas of rough and difficult terrain like snow bound mountains. But at the same chances of misinterpretations will also be increased in the same proportion, when dealing with high altitude mountains in remote sensing. Seasonal variation within single year time framework and temporal changes in long time are more important to understand separately. Verification of the imagery selection, operations and findings is the key of analysis. This paper focused upon misinterpretation often occurs in the geospatial domain by shifting the focus, when observations transforming to information. A negligible error in selection of imagery, operation or perception make it possible to misinterpret the findings. In this study we are try to withdrawing kind attention of users toward small-small negligence, that cost a lot. In this study we take area under Nanda Devi national Park as an example to highlight such errors.

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]
×

This Page is Under Development

We are currently updating this article page for a better experience.

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Cross Validation can Cause a Difference of Misinterpretation to Valid Interpretation

Vipin Upadhyay
Vipin Upadhyay Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun
B. S. Adhikari
B. S. Adhikari

Research Journals