MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969422088 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2014.6946699

Sampling based image splitting in large scale distributed computing of earth observation data

2014· article· en· W1969422088 on OpenAlexaff
Xing Jin, Renée Sieber

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoronoi diagramComputer scienceRectangleSampling (signal processing)Node (physics)Spatial analysisComputationPolygon (computer graphics)Remote sensingComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increasing amounts of spatial, spectral and temporal remote sensing data and heterogeneity of platforms, we have entered an era of big data in remote sensing research. Imagery now routinely exceeds the memory size of personal computers so splitting/distributing big remote sensing data becomes a necessary pre-processing step. Standard rectangle based splitting methods can distort existing geometric and topological information and lose features as images are split into tiles. To address these challenges, we propose a sampling based image splitting method, which models the dataset as a streaming service and splits the dataset with a Voronoi diagram. The streaming data is systematically sampled to initially select the seeds of a Voronoi diagram. Voronoi regions are then generated according to spatial and spectral distances using Fortune's sweepline algorithm [1]. We test the splitting method with AVIRIS imagery of North America in 2013 (courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech) to evaluate the ability to detect objects of our splitting method. For evaluation we employ the object-based classification method of Hay and Castilla [2]. In contrast to rectangle based splitting approaches, most polygon borders generated by our method are found to converge with object borders (e.g., trees, building, and roads). When deployed with MapReduce, our sampling based splitting method also helps balance the computation intensity between each computing node.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207