MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084382156 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2012.6351607

A review and comparison of commercially available pan-sharpening techniques for high resolution satellite image fusion

2012· review· en· W2084382156 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

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanchromatic filmSharpeningMultispectral imageImage fusionRemote sensingComputer scienceImage resolutionSatelliteArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)GeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High resolution panchromatic (Pan) and multispectral (MS) images from modern satellites have been increasingly used in remote sensing applications. Many pan-sharpening algorithms have been adopted by commercial remote sensing and GIS software packages. However, discrepant pan-sharpening results have been reported by different papers using different fusion techniques and images. There is a lack of common understanding of the performance of the techniques. The paper provides an overview and the results of a comprehensive test and evaluation of commercial techniques for pan-sharpening IKONOS, QuickBird, GeoEye-1, and WorldView-2 images.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations92
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image Fusion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207