MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147928240 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2003.1293754

Compressed hyperspectral imagery for forestry

2004· article· en· W2147928240 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. Dyk, D.G. Goodenough, Sara E. Thompson, Caroline Nadeau, A. Hollinger, Shen‐En Qian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of VictoriaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingUncompressed videoComputer scienceVector quantizationData compressionQuantization (signal processing)Remote sensingArtificial intelligenceData miningAlgorithmGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various compression schemes have been suggested for storage and distribution of hyperspectral remotely sensed data. Hyperspectral forestry applications that rely on the measurement of subtle variations in the spectral signature of the forest canopy can be affected by modification of the spectra induced by compression. As part of an experiment for the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), Hyperion data cubes acquired over the Greater Victoria Watershed District (GVWD) were compressed using the Successive Approximation Multi-stage Vector Quantization (SAMVQ) and Hierarchical Self-Organizing Cluster Vector Quantization (HSOCVQ) algorithms developed by CSA. The data were compressed using compression ratios 10:1 and 20:1 and were returned uncompressed. The data cubes were classified into forest species using the same supervised classification methodology as applied to the original data. The classification accuracies were compared. For some applications, one can achieve significant reductions in data volume through compression. Of the compression algorithms and ratios tested, SAMVQ 10:1 has the least overall effect but still reduces classification accuracies on difficult to separate classes. While uncompressed data are preferred, SAMVQ 10:1 compression may be suitable for forest inventory.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207