MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536525838 · doi:10.3390/s16111783

Optimal Subset Selection of Time-Series MODIS Images and Sample Data Transfer with Random Forests for Supervised Classification Modelling

2016· article· en· W2536525838 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fuqun Zhou, Aining Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerLand coverRandom forestRemote sensingOutlierComputer scienceFeature selectionData miningScale (ratio)Time seriesIdentification (biology)Missing dataArtificial intelligenceSatelliteMachine learningLand useGeographyCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, various time-series Earth Observation data with multiple bands are freely available, such as Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) datasets including 8-day composites from NASA, and 10-day composites from the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS). It is challenging to efficiently use these time-series MODIS datasets for long-term environmental monitoring due to their vast volume and information redundancy. This challenge will be greater when Sentinel 2-3 data become available. Another challenge that researchers face is the lack of in-situ data for supervised modelling, especially for time-series data analysis. In this study, we attempt to tackle the two important issues with a case study of land cover mapping using CCRS 10-day MODIS composites with the help of Random Forests' features: variable importance, outlier identification. The variable importance feature is used to analyze and select optimal subsets of time-series MODIS imagery for efficient land cover mapping, and the outlier identification feature is utilized for transferring sample data available from one year to an adjacent year for supervised classification modelling. The results of the case study of agricultural land cover classification at a regional scale show that using only about a half of the variables we can achieve land cover classification accuracy close to that generated using the full dataset. The proposed simple but effective solution of sample transferring could make supervised modelling possible for applications lacking sample data.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207