Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2015,14:25) | The damn trolls keep making junk up as they go along, while the science defenders go on condoning it:
| Quote | Finding Ground Truth from Above
Catherine Clabby
The vegetation covering much of Earth makes it tough to survey the planet’s surface from above. In other words, it’s difficult to see the ground-level features for the trees. Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology has changed that. Combining laser surveying instruments and GPS, researchers make bare-Earth maps of thousands of square kilometers with decimeter resolution. William E. Carter cofounded the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and operated by the University of Houston and the University of California, Berkeley. Carter discussed the promise of the technology with American Scientist associate editor Catherine Clabby |
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues.....m-above
| Quote | Statistics and machine learning
In machine learning, the term "ground truth" refers to the accuracy of the training set's classification for supervised learning techniques. This is used in statistical models to prove or disprove research hypotheses. The term "ground truthing" refers to the process of gathering the proper objective (provable) data for this test. Compare with gold standard (test).
Bayesian spam filtering is a common example of supervised learning. In this system, the algorithm is manually taught the differences between spam and non-spam. This depends on the ground truth of the messages used to train the algorithm – inaccuracies in the ground truth will correlate to inaccuracies in the resulting spam/non-spam verdicts. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_truth
None of the above has any relevance at all to unsupervised learning in cognitive systems that demonstrate how intelligence works. |
I asked you to describe in your own words what ground-truthing means, and why you believe the term is being used erroneously in reference to your "model." The fact that you're unable to do that is indicative of the fact that you don't understand what you're talking about and believe that throwing up impotent smokescreens will mask your ignorance.
If you can't succinctly articulate your objections, it's a sure sign of intellectual deficit or laziness.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
