AIRBORNE MULTISPECTRAL LIDAR DATA FOR LAND-COVER CLASSIFICATION AND LAND/WATER MAPPING USING DIFFERENT SPECTRAL INDEXES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Airborne Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) data is widely used in remote sensing applications, such as topographic and landwater mapping. Recently, airborne multispectral LiDAR sensors, which acquire data at different wavelengths, are available, thus allows recording a diversity of intensity values from different land features. In this study, three normalized difference feature indexes (NDFI), for vegetation, water, and built-up area mapping, were evaluated. The NDFIs namely, NDFIG-NIR, NDFIG-MIR, and NDFINIR-MIR were calculated using data collected at three wavelengths; green: 532 nm, near-infrared (NIR): 1064 nm, and mid-infrared (MIR): 1550 nm by the world’s first airborne multispectral LiDAR sensor “Optech Titan”. The Jenks natural breaks optimization method was used to determine the threshold values for each NDFI, in order to cluster the 3D point data into two classes (water and land or vegetation and built-up area). Two sites at Scarborough, Ontario, Canada were tested to evaluate the performance of the NDFIs for land-water, vegetation, and built-up area mapping. The use of the three NDFIs succeeded to discriminate vegetation from built-up areas with an overall accuracy of 92.51%. Based on the classification results, it is suggested to use NDFIG-MIR and NDFINIR-MIR for vegetation and built-up areas extraction, respectively. The clustering results show that the direct use of NDFIs for land-water mapping has low performance. Therefore, the clustered classes, based on the NDFIs, are constrained by the recorded number of returns from different wavelengths, thus the overall accuracy is improved to 96.98%.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".