MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103748534 · doi:10.1117/12.2029330

Integration of multispectral and C-band SAR data for crop classification

2013· article· en· W2103748534 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorenzo Iannini, Ramses A. Molijn, Ramon F. Hanssen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultispectral imageComputer scienceRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarCanolaContextual image classificationPrecision agriculturePolarimetryField (mathematics)CropArtificial intelligenceAgricultureImage (mathematics)MathematicsGeographyAgronomyForestryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper debates the impact of sensor configuration diversity on the crop classification performance. More specifically, the analysis accounts for multi-temporal and polarimetric C-Band SAR information used individually and in synergy with Multispectral imagery. The dataset used for the investigation comprises several multi-angle Radarsat-2 (RS2) fullpol acquisitions and RapidEye (RE) images both at fine resolution collected over the Indian Head (Canada) agricultural site area and spanning the summer crop growth cycle from May to September. A quasi-Maximum Likelihood (ML) classification approach applied at per-field level has been adopted to integrate the different data sources. The analysis provided evidence on the overall accuracy enhancement with respect to the individual sensor performances, with 4%-8% increase over a single RE image, a 40%-10% increase over a single 1-pol/full-pol image and 15%-0% increase over multitemporal 1-pol/full-pol RS2 series respectively. A more detailed crop analysis revealed that in particular canola and the cereals benefit from the integration, whereas lentil and flax can experience similar or worse performance when compared to the RE-based classification. Comments and suggestions for further development are presented.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207