Land cover classification of Lago Grande de Curuai floodplain (Amazon, Brazil) using multi-sensor and image fusion techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the limitations of different types of remote sensing images, automated land-cover classifications of the Amazon várzea may yield poor accuracy indexes. One way to improve accuracy is through the combination of images from different sensors, by either image fusion or multi-sensor classifications. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine which classification method is more efficient in improving land cover classification accuracies for the Amazon várzea and similar wetland environments - (a) synthetically fused optical and SAR images or (b) multi-sensor classification of paired SAR and optical images. Land cover classifications based on images from a single sensor (Landsat TM or Radarsat-2) are compared with multi-sensor and image fusion classifications. Object-based image analyses (OBIA) and the J.48 data-mining algorithm were used for automated classification, and classification accuracies were assessed using the kappa index of agreement and the recently proposed allocation and quantity disagreement measures. Overall, optical-based classifications had better accuracy than SAR-based classifications. Once both datasets were combined using the multi-sensor approach, there was a 2% decrease in allocation disagreement, as the method was able to overcome part of the limitations present in both images. Accuracy decreased when image fusion methods were used, however. We therefore concluded that the multi-sensor classification method is more appropriate for classifying land cover in the Amazon várzea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".