Evaluation of the potential of various spectral indices and textural features derived from satellite images for surficial deposits mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper deals with the relevance of spectral and textural indices to surficial deposits identification and mapping. The study area is located in the Cochabamba valley in central Bolivia. Potential of SPOT‐4, Landsat‐7 and Radarsat‐1 data were compared for surficial deposits mapping. Different spectral indices including NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) and TSAVI (transformed soil adjusted vegetation index) and textural features (mean, standard deviation, angular second moment, entropy, etc.) were extracted from these datasets and used in the mapping process. The results showed that indices exhibit different level of sensitivities according to surficial deposit types. A discriminant analysis was conducted to extract the most significant indices, which were then used in a three‐step linear combination mathematical model to map surficial deposits. We achieved an overall classification rate of 74% using spectral data of land use map in step 1. By adding information on vegetation and soils obtained from evaluation of spectral indices, this rate was improved to 82% during step 2. Finally, it was further slightly improved to 83% by adding textural data in the final step.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".