A Comparative Study of Clustering Methods for Urban Areas Segmentation from High Resolution Remote Sensing Image
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
This paper focuses on evaluating and comparing a number of clustering methods used in color image segmentation of high resolution remote sensing images. Despite the enormous progress in the analysis of remote sensing imagery over the past three decades, there is a lack of guidance on how to select an image segmentation method suitable for the image type and size. Clustering has been widely used as a segmentation approach therefore, choosing an appropriate clustering method is very critical to achieve better results. In this paper we compare five clustering methods that have been suggested for segmentation of images. We focus on segmentation of urban areas in high resolution remote sensing images. Effective clustering extracts regions which correspond to land uses in urban areas. Ground truth images are used to evaluate the performance of clustering methods. The comparison shows that the average accuracy of road extraction is above 75%. The results show the potential of clustering high resolution aerial images starting from the three RGB bands only. The comparison gives some guidance and tradeoffs involved in using each.
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 | 0.000 | 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