MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098761820 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2010.2045881

A Conceptual Model for Multi-Temporal Landscape Monitoring in an Object-Based Environment

2010· article· en· W2098761820 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Linke, Gregory J. McDermid

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsComputer scienceSpurious relationshipObject (grammar)Change detectionArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Computer visionThematic mapLand coverData miningLand useMachine learningCartographyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote sensing plays a critical role in contemporary monitoring programs, but our strategies for processing these data using automated procedures are not always reliable. In particular, the task of separating real from spurious changes remains problematic, especially in an object-based environment where differential errors in classification quality, spatial registration, scene illumination, resolution, and object delineation have forced some operators to adopt labor-intensive visual-interpretation strategies, or employ manual interaction on an object-by-object basis. In this paper, we present an updated summary of our new disturbance-inventory approach to land-cover monitoring that combines object-based classification and change-detection strategies with boundary-conditioning routines designed to maximize the spatial and thematic integrity of the finished products. With this approach, the final maps are only altered in regions of confirmed change, and spurious gaps, slivers, stretches, and encroachments are avoided. The approach constitutes an innovative, efficient, and transparent framework that can handle all the basic landscape dynamics, including feature appearance, disappearance, succession, expansion, and shrinkage, without the need for manual editing.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207