MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141891739 · doi:10.1111/sed.12072

Mapping sub‐pixel fluvial grain sizes with hyperspatial imagery

2013· article· en· W2141891739 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Black, Patrice Carbonneau, Michael Church, Jeff Warburton

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDurham UniversityNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPixelStandard deviationThresholdingMultispectral imageRemote sensingGeologyTexture (cosmology)PercentileCalibrationFilter (signal processing)Thematic MapperArtificial intelligenceMathematicsSatellite imageryImage (mathematics)StatisticsComputer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents an investigation of image texture approaches for mapping sub‐pixel fluvial grain‐size features from airborne imagery, allowing for the rapid acquisition of surface sand and coarse fraction (>1·41 mm) grain‐size information. Imagery at 30 mm resolution was acquired over four gravel bars from the Fraser River (British Columbia, Canada). Combined first‐order and second‐order image texture approaches (windowed standard deviation filter and the grey level co‐occurrence matrix) were used. First‐order image texture, through the application of a standard deviation filter and subsequent thresholding was used to detect the presence of surface sand, with optimal accuracy achieved at 91 ± 1·9%. A wide‐ranging parameter space investigation was used to derive optimum parameters for the grey‐level co‐occurrence matrix. Subsequently first‐order and second‐order image textures were used in multiple linear regression to achieve good calibrations with several sub‐pixel grain‐size percentiles; relative error at 1·44%, 3·18%, 6·80% and 10·6% for D 5 , D 16 , D 35 and D 50 , respectively. The larger percentiles of D 84 and D 95 had relative errors of 24·7% and 29·7%, respectively. The breakdown of calibration precision for larger percentiles is attributed to a ‘pixel averaging effect’. It is concluded that multispectral imagery is not required, because sufficient image texture information can be derived from standard colour imagery. Recommendations are suggested for the application of this method to other localities and data sets, thus reducing exhaustive parameter searches in future studies.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207