Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Remotely sensed spectral imagery, geophysical (magnetic and gravity), and geodetic (elevation) data are useful in a variety of Earth science applications such as environmental monitoring and mineral exploration. Using these data with Machine Learning Algorithms (MLA), which are widely used in image analysis and statistical pattern recognition applications, may enhance preliminary geological mapping and interpretation. This approach contributes towards a rapid and objective means of geological mapping in contrast to conventional field expedition techniques. In this study, four supervised MLAs (naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbour, random forest, and support vector machines) are compared in order to assess their performance for correctly identifying geological rocktypes in an area with complete ground validation information. Geological maps of the Sudbury region are used for calibration and validation. Percent of correct classifications was used as indicators of performance. Results show that random forest is the best approach. As expected, MLA performance improves with more calibration clusters, i.e. a more uniform distribution of calibration data over the study region. Performance is generally low, though geological trends that correspond to a ground validation map are visualized. Low performance may be the result of poor spectral images of bare rock which can be covered by vegetation or water. The distribution of calibration clusters and MLA input parameters affect the performance of the MLAs. Generally, performance improves with more uniform sampling, though this increases required computational effort and time. With the achievable performance levels in this study, the technique is useful in identifying regions of interest and identifying general rocktype trends. In particular, phase I geological site investigations will benefit from this approach and lead to the selection of sites for advanced surveys.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".