The effects of topographic correction and gap filling in imagery on the detection of tropical forest disturbances using a Landsat time series in Myanmar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the effects of topographic correction and gap filling of Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) images on the accuracy of forest change detection through a trajectory-based approach. Four types of Landsat time series stacks (LTSS) were generated. These stacks resulted from combinations of topographically corrected and uncorrected imagery combined with gap-filled and unfilled stacks. These combinations of stacks were then used as input into a trajectory-based change detection. The results of change detection from trajectory-based analysis using these LTSS were compared in order to assess the effects of both topographic correction and gap-filling procedures on the ability to detect forest disturbances. The results showed that overall accuracies of change detection were improved after gap filling (10.5% and 7.5%), but were only slightly improved after topographic correction (3.6% and 0.6%). Although the gap-filling process introduced some uncertainty that might have caused false change detection, the number of pixels whose detection of disturbance was enhanced after gap filling exceeded those detecting false change. The results also showed that the topographic correction did not contribute much to improve the change detection in this study area. However, topographic correction has a potential to increase the accuracy of change detection in areas of more rugged terrain and steep slopes. This is because a direct relationship between the slope of the topography with topographic correction and an enhanced detection of disturbance in pixels from year to year was observed in this study. For robust change detection, we recommend that a gap-filling process should be included in the trajectory-based analysis procedures such as the one used in this study where a single image per year is used to characterize change. We also recommend that in areas of rugged terrain, a topographic correction in the image pre-processing should be implemented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".