Assessing the Potential to Operationalize Shoreline Sensitivity Mapping: Classifying Multiple Wide Fine Quadrature Polarized RADARSAT-2 and Landsat 5 Scenes with a Single Random Forest Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Random Forest algorithm was used to classify 86 Wide Fine Quadrature Polarized RADARSAT-2 scenes, five Landsat 5 scenes, and a Digital Elevation Model covering an area approximately 81,000 km2 in size, and representing the entirety of Dease Strait, Coronation Gulf and Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut. The focus of this research was to assess the potential to operationalize shoreline sensitivity mapping to inform oil spill response and contingency planning. The impact of varying the training sample size and reducing model data load were evaluated. Results showed that acceptable accuracies could be achieved with relatively few training samples, but that higher accuracies and greater probabilities of correct class assignment were observed with larger sample sizes. Additionally, the number of inputs to the model could be greatly reduced without impacting overall performance. Optimized models reached independent accuracies of 91% for seven land cover types, and classification probabilities between 0.77 and 0.98 (values for latter represent per-class averages generated from independent validation sites). Mixed results were observed when assessing the potential for remote predictive mapping by simulating transferability of the model to scenes without training data.
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".