MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999583826 · doi:10.1109/isspa.2012.6310623

Object- versus pixel-based building detection for disaster response

2012· article· en· W1999583826 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsPixelComputer scienceObject (grammar)Disaster responseObject detectionField (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionEmergency managementData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent disasters have shown that there is a growing interest for remotely sensed data to support decision makers and emergency teams in the field. Fast and accurate detection of buildings and sustained damage is of great importance. Current methods rely on numerous photo-interpreters to visually analyze the data. Multiple pixel-based methods exist to classify pixels as being part of a building or not but results vary widely and precision is often poor with very high resolution images. This paper proposes an object-based solution to building detection and compares it to a traditional approach. Object-based classification clearly provides adequate results in much less time and thus is ideal for disaster response.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207