MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143380823 · doi:10.2112/si_62_9

Benthic Classifications Using Bathymetric LIDAR Waveforms and Integration of Local Spatial Statistics and Textural Features

2011· article· en· W2143380823 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Collin, Bernard Long, Philippe Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coastal Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic habitatCluster analysisBathymetryPattern recognition (psychology)LidarStatisticsPrincipal component analysisSupport vector machineGeostatisticsBenthic zoneSpatial analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingMathematicsGeographyCartographySpatial variabilityGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scope of this research is to assess benthoscape discrimination by airborne light detection and ranging (LIDAR) bathymetry (ALB) on the basis of statistical parameters derived from the LIDAR waveforms, textural information, and local spatial statistics. Analysis of the underwater camera stations allowed clustering of the stations into groups on the basis of their habitat composition (β-diversity). Twelve descriptive statistics describing the shape of the bottom part of the waveform, also called 12 benthic parameters, were used for discriminating four benthic habitats. A K-means classification and a supervised method based on the Support Vector Machine (SVM) were applied to this dataset, and overall accuracies of 67.7% and 89.9% were obtained, respectively. Geostatistical analyses, using 11 textural measures, defined by the gray-level occurrence matrix (GLOM) and the gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), and three local spatial statistics were then applied to the 12 benthic parameters to enhance the SVM classification performance. The assessment of the contribution of geostatistics into benthic class segmentation was achieved by computation of separability distance. Mean (from the GLOM), mean (from the GLCM) and the local Getis-Ord statistic yielded the best rates of discrimination. These added metrics, integrated with bands related to the 12 benthic parameters, showed that the rate of correct (supervised) classification was thereby improved and increased by 5.3%. Finally, the first four principal components (PCs) (i.e., 90.41% of the 12 parameter variances, boosted by the three best geostatistics) brought out an overall accuracy of 93.3%, showing evidence for optimizing the classification processing.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coastal ResearchSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207