MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975219361 · doi:10.1117/12.760747

Fusion of RADARSAT fine-beam SAR and QuickBird data for land-cover mapping and change detection

2007· article· en· W1975219361 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yifang Ban, Hongtao Hu, Irene Rangel

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsChange detectionLand coverCohen's kappaRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceContextual image classificationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Land useGeographyImage (mathematics)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research is to evaluate multitemporal RADARSAT Fine-Beam C-HH SAR data, QuickBird MS data, and fusion of SAR and MS for urban land-cover mapping and change detection One scene of QuickBird imagery was acquired on July 18, 2002 and five-date RADARSAT fine-beam SAR images were acquired during May to August in 2002. Landsat TM imagery from 1988 was used for change detection. QucikBird images were classified using an object-based and rule-based approach. RADARSAR SAR texture images were classified using a hybrid approach. The results demonstrated that, for identifying 19 land-cover classes, object-based and rule-based classification of Quickbird data yielded an overall classification accuracy of 86.7% (kappa 0.857). For identifying 11 land-cover classes, ANN classification of the combined Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation texture images yielded an overall accuracy: 71.4%, (Kappa: 0.69). The hybrid classification of RADARSAT fine-beam SAR data improved the ANN classification accuracy to 83.56% (kappa: 0.803). Decision level fusion of RADARSAT SAR and QuickBird data improved the classification accuracy of several land cover classes. The post-classification change detection was able to identify the areas of significant change, for example, major new roads, new low-density and high-density builtup areas and golf courses, even though the change detection results contained large amount of noise due to classification errors of individual images. QuickBrid classification result was able add detailed change information to the major changes identified.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207