Remote sensing methods in medium spatial resolution satellite data land cover classification of large areas
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous large-area, multiple image-based, multiple sensor land cover mapping programs exist or have been proposed, often within the context of national forest monitoring, mapping and modelling initiatives, worldwide. Common methodological steps have been identified that include data acquisition and preprocessing, map legend development, classification approach, stratification, incorporation of ancillary data and accuracy assessment. In general, procedures used in any large-area land cover classification must be robust and repeatable; because of data acquisition parameters, it is likely that compilation of the maps based on the classification will occur with original image acquisitions of different seasonality and perhaps acquired in different years and by different sensors. This situation poses some new challenges beyond those encountered in large-area single image classifications. The objective of this paper is to review and assess general medium spatial resolution satellite remote sensing land cover classification approaches with the goal of identifying the outstanding issues that must be overcome in order to implement a large-area, land cover classification protocol.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it