Examining the effect of spatial resolution and texture window size on classification accuracy: an urban environment case
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate spatial resolution effects on image classification. Classification maps were generated with a maximum likelihood (ML) classifier applied to three multi-spectral bands and variance texture images. A total of eight urban land use/cover classes were obtained at six spatial resolution levels based on a series of aggregated Colour Infrared Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ) subsets in urban and rural fringe areas of the San Diego metropolitan area. The classification results were compared using overall and individual classification accuracies.Classification accuracies were shown to be influenced by image spatial resolution, window size used in texture extraction and differences in spatial structure within and between categories. The more heterogeneous are the land use/cover units and the more fragmented are the landscapes, the finer the resolution required. Texture was more effective for improving the classification accuracy of land use classes at finer resolution levels. For spectrally homogeneous classes, a small window is preferable. But for spectrally heterogeneous classes, a large window size is required. Notes *Present address: Department of Geography, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada; e-mail: chendm@post.queensu.caAdditional informationNotes on contributorsD. Chen* *Present address: Department of Geography, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada; e-mail: chendm@post.queensu.ca
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.
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 it