MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395968533 · doi:10.1080/10106049.2015.1120351

An evaluation of Radarsat-2 individual and combined image dates for land use/cover mapping

2015· article· en· W2395968533 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Terry Idol, Barry Haack, Ron Mahabir

Bibliographic record

VenueGeocarto International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of AgricultureEuropean Space AgencyU.S. Geological SurveyGeorge Mason University
KeywordsThematic mapLand coverGeographyRemote sensingCartographyThematic MapperLand useContextual image classificationCover (algebra)Physical geographySatellite imageryImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various land use/cover types exhibit seasonal characteristics which can be captured in remotely sensed imagery. This study examined how different seasons of Radarsat-2 data influence land use/cover classification accuracies for two study sites. Two dates of Radarsat-2 C-band quad-polarised images were obtained for Washington, DC, USA and Wad Madani, Sudan. Spectral signatures were extracted and used with a maximum likelihood decision rule for classification and thematic accuracies were then determined. Both despeckled radar and derived texture measures were examined. Thematic accuracies for the two despeckled image dates were similar with a difference of 3% for Washington and 6% for Sudan. Merging the despeckled images for both seasons increased overall accuracy by 2% for Washington and 9% for Sudan. Further combining the original radar for both seasons with derived texture measures increased overall accuracies by 9% for Washington and 16% for Sudan for final overall accuracy values of 73 and 82%.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeocarto InternationalSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207