How Usable Are Geospatial Foundation Models? A Systematic Evaluation of 89 Models
Geospatial foundation models (GeoFMs) offer transformative potential for environmental monitoring, yet adoption among ecologists is uneven. Most evaluations are model-centric, focusing on architecture and benchmark accuracy, which overlooks whether the systems are usable by their intended audiences. To address this gap, we first conducted a pilot expert elicitation survey with ecology and conservation scientists that helped us identify misalignments between current GeoFM development priorities a
Record details
Published: 4 August 2026
Source: arXiv cs.HC
Category: Research
Topics: Safety & alignment · Environment
Retrieved: 12 August 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
How Usable Are Geospatial Foundation Models? A Systematic Evaluation of 89 Models
arXiv cs.HC · 4 August 2026
AS-FedBridge: Pseudo-Spike Bridge Distillation for Heterogeneous ANN-SNN Federated Learning
arXiv cs.LG · 4 August 2026
A Counterexample to Fourier Alignment in Single-Neuron Modular Addition
arXiv cs.LG · 5 August 2026
A Counterexample to Fourier Alignment in Single-Neuron Modular Addition
arXiv cs.LG · 5 August 2026
An AI-Based Decision-Support Pipeline for Day-Ahead Photovoltaic Forecasting
arXiv · 3 August 2026
Moving the Safety Barrier: Dynamic Routing Adaptive Alignment Against White-Box Attacks
arXiv red teaming query · 2 August 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (4 August 2026), “How Usable Are Geospatial Foundation Models? A Systematic Evaluation of 89 Models,” evidence record 18692, https://ethics.ai/record/18692 (originally published by arXiv cs.HC).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.