Contextual classification of Landsat TM images to forest inventory cover types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of Landsat TM images forest stands are a cluster of homogeneous pixels. Contextual classification of forest cover types exploits relationships between neighbouring pixels in the pursuit of an increase in classification accuracy. Results with six contextual classifiers from two sites in Canada were compared to results with a maximum likelihood (ML) classifier. The comparisons were done at three levels of spectral class separation. Training and validation data were obtained from single-stage cluster sampling of 2 km×2 km primary sampling units (PSU) located on a 20 km×20 km grid. A strong relationship between contextual and ML classification accuracy was explored with logistic regression analysis. Effects of contextual classification were predicted for given levels of ML accuracy. Estimates of the spatial autocorrelation of reflectance values within a PSU were deemed consistent with a first-order autoregressive process. Iterative Conditional Modes (ICM) was the best contextual method; it improved the overall accuracy by four to six percentage points (statistically significant) when ML accuracy was between 50% and 80%. A relaxed ICM and a smoothing algorithm were second and third best. Contextual classification is most promising when an ML accuracy is around 70%. ICM results were sensitive to the level of spatial autocorrelation of ML classification errors and to the homogeneity of a PSU.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".