MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024807719 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2012.2201448

An Adaptive Contextual SEM Algorithm for Urban Land Cover Mapping Using Multitemporal High-Resolution Polarimetric SAR Data

2012· article· en· W2024807719 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xin Niu, Yifang Ban

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWishart distributionMarkov random fieldLand coverComputer sciencePolarimetrySynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceParametric statisticsPattern recognition (psychology)Image resolutionContextual image classificationMachine learningGeographyImage (mathematics)Image segmentationMathematicsLand use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a semi-supervised Stochastic Expectation-Maximization (SEM) algorithm for detailed urban land cover mapping using multitemporal high-resolution polarimetric SAR (PolSAR) data. By applying an adaptive Markov Random Field (MRF) with the spatially variant Finite Mixture Model (SVFMM), spatial-temporal contextual information could be effectively explored to improve the mapping accuracy with homogenous results and preserved shape details. Further, a learning control scheme was proposed to ensure a robust semi-supervised mapping process thus avoiding the undesired class merges. Four-date RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR data over the Greater Toronto Area were used to evaluate the proposed method. Common PolSAR distribution models such as Wishart, G0p, Kp and KummerU were compared through this contextual SEM algorithm for detailed urban land cover mapping. Comparisons with Support Vector Machine (SVM) were also conducted to assess the potential of our parametric approach. The results show that the Kp, G0p and KummerU models could generate better urban land cover mapping results than the Wishart model and SVM.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207