Segmentation parameter selection for object-based land-cover mapping from ultra high resolution spectral and elevation data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmentation is the primary task for image analysis in many practical applications, such as object-based image analysis. Segmentation algorithms need to have properly estimated parameters to provide efficient performance and reliable results. Due to the fact that some features have different shapes and spectral characteristics, it is hard to find the proper parameters for the whole image. In this article, we propose a new method for resolving this issue through the building of a hierarchy of segmentations, based on the number of land-cover classes in the image, namely segmentation scale space (SSS). Both spectral and elevation data are employed in order to enhance the SSS and to obtain a single segmentation for the image. The performance of the proposed algorithm is evaluated using two data sets, which consist of ultra-high resolution aerial images and elevation data with ground sampling distance of 5 and 9 cm, respectively. The experiments demonstrate the efficiency of enhanced segmentation with respect to over and under segmentation cases. Finally, the comparative analysis shows that the accuracy of the proposed method is superior to the classical methods.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it