MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023501853 · doi:10.1108/dpm-12-2012-0148

Towards a rapid automatic detection of building damage using remote sensing for disaster management

2014· article· en· W2023501853 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisaster Prevention and Management An International Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDamagesEmergency managementRemote sensingImage resolutionComputer visionData miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – Satellite and airborne images are increasingly used at different stages of disaster management, especially in the detection of infrastructure damage. Although semi- or full automatic techniques to detect damage have been proposed, they have not been used in emergency situations. Damage maps produced by international organisations are still based on visual interpretation of images, which is time- and labour-consuming. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how an automatic mapping of damage can be helpful for a first and rapid assessment of building damage. Design/methodology/approach – The study area is located in Port-au-Prince (Haiti) stricken by an earthquake in January 2010. To detect building damage, the paper uses optical images (15 cm of spatial resolution) coupled with height data (LiDAR, 1 m of spatial resolution). By undertaking an automatic object-oriented classification, the paper identifies three categories of building damages: intact buildings, collapsed buildings and debris. Findings – Data processing for the study area covering 11 km2 took about 15 hours. The accuracy of the classification varies from 70 to 79 per cent depending to the methods of assessment. Causes of errors are numerous: limited spectral information of the optical images, resolution difference between the two data, high density of buildings but most importantly, certain types of building collapses could not be detected by vertically taken images (the case of data in this study). Originality/value – The automatic damage mapping developed in this paper proves to be reliable and could be used in emergency situations. It could also be combined with manual visual interpretation to accelerate the planning of humanitarian rescues and reconstruction.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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