MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283858015 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2015.1129561

Mapping urban land cover based on spatial-spectral classification of hyperspectral remote-sensing data

2016· article· en· W2283858015 on OpenAlexaffabout
Davood Akbari, Saeid Homayouni, Abdolreza Safari, Naser Mehrshad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPurdue University
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingSupport vector machineLand coverCohen's kappaComputer scienceRemote sensingPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePixelSpatial analysisData miningLand useGeographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, an innovative classification framework for hyperspectral image data, based on both spectral and spatial information, is proposed. The main objective of this method is to improve the accuracy and efficiency of high-resolution land-cover mapping in urban areas. The spatial information is obtained by an enhanced marker-based minimum spanning forest (MMSF) algorithm. A pixel-based support vector machine (SVM) algorithm is first used to classify the hyperspectral image data, then the enhanced MMSF algorithm is applied in order to increase the accuracy of less accurately classified land-cover types. The enhanced MMSF algorithm is used as a binary classifier. These two classes are the low-accuracy class and remaining classes. Finally, the SVM algorithm is trained for classes with acceptable accuracy. In the proposed approach, namely MSF-SVM, the markers are extracted from the classification maps obtained by both SVM and watershed segmentation algorithms, and are then used to build the MSF. Three benchmark hyperspectral data sets are used for the assessment: Berlin, Washington DC Mall, and Quebec City. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed approach compared with SVM and the original MMSF algorithms. It achieves approximately 5, 6, and 7% higher rates in kappa coefficients of agreement in comparison with the original MMSF algorithm for the Berlin, Washington DC Mall, and Quebec City data sets, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207